S3  6 


T84 


in  the  ®itxs  0f  gUw  !Jork 


GIVEN    BY 


Irxes  1de.Ti.t5. .  Q±ii  ce 


This  book 


is  due  two   we 


eks   from   tin-    last    date- 


stamped  below,  and   if  not  returned  or  renewed  at  or 
before  that  time  a  fine  of  five  cents  a  day  will  be  incurred. 


JUL  111921 

- 

• 

A  Vindication  of  Christ 


Roman  Catholicism 

Capitulating  Before 

Protestantism 


BY 


G.  V.  FRADRYSSA 

Doctor  of  Philosophy  and  Theology  ;  Lecturer  on 
Sacred  Scriptures  ;  Synodal  Examiner 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  SPANISH 


SOUTHERN  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

MOBILE,  ALABAMA 
1908 


Copyright  1908,  by 

Southern  Publishing  Company 

Mobile,  Ala. 


Entered  at  Stationers'  Hall,  London,  England 

1908 

All  rights  reserved 


Issued  from  The  Cumberland  Press,  Nashville 


CONTENTS. 

»  Prologue       ------- ____vji 

Introduction     ---------------     xi 

CHAPTER  I. 

Discussion  Outlined.  Enumeration  of  the  Funda- 
mental Principles  Admitted  by  both  the  Protest- 
ants and  the  Catholics      - I 

CHAPTER  II. 

Discussion  and  Outline  of  the  Means  of  Knowing 
Christ     ----------- 8 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Only  Sure  Way  of  Knowing  Christ  and  His 
Church  Is  through  the  Gospels 18 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Are  the  Gospels  Sufficient  in  Order  to  Know  Christ 
and  His  Church?    ------ 26 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Subject  of  the  Previous  Chapter  Continued    -    -    37 

CHAPTER  VI. 

In  This  Chapter  We  Corroborate  the  Same  Doctrines 
Outlined  in  the  Preceding  One,  by  the  Conduct 
and  Writing  of  the  Apostles,  and  Also  Answer 
the  Main  Objection  of  the  Romans     -----    51 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Church  According  to  the  Gospels  and  the  Writ- 
ings of  the  Apostles    -----------62 

'$  CHAPTER  VIII. 

Did  Christ  Establish  an  Official  Jurisdiction  ?  and  if 
so,  Did  He  Grant  It  Collectively  or  Was  It  As- 
signed by  Him  to  Some  Members  of  the  Whole?    -    75 

(iii) 


<N 


IV  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Is  the  Fourth  Theory  Admissible,  Which  Declares  an 
Infallible  Papacy  over  the  Episcopate?    -    -    -    -    85 

CHAPTER  X. 

Do  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  the  Conduct  of  the  Other 
Apostles  Affirm  or  Deny  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Pope?       ----------------  108 

CHAPTER  XL 

Did  the  Sub-Apostolic  Fathers  Believe  in  the  Pope's 
Infallibility?       -------------  125 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Will  It  Be  Possible  Fully  to  Explain  the  Primacy 
and  Pontifical  Infallibility  by  Simple  Reference 
to  the  General  Laws  of  History?    ------  140 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Bewildering  and  Fatal  Condition  of  the  Roman 
Church,  Subsequent  to  the  Pontifical  Infalli- 
bility      ----------------  159 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Can  the  Temporal  Power  of  the  Popes  Be  Upheld  in 
the  Midst  of  the  Twentieth  Century?    -    -    -    -  173 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Notes  of  the  Church    ------------  190 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Sanctity  of  the  Roman  Church     --------  200 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Unity  in  the  Roman  Church    ---------  218 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Ecclesiastical  Celibacy     -----------  244 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
The  Inquisition  and  Romanism     --------  257 

CHAPTER  XX. 
Justification,  Its  Causes  and  Consequences    -    -    -    -  283 


CONTENTS  V 

CHAPTER  XXL 
The  Sacraments    --------------  305 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Purgatory  and  the  Mass    -----------321 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  Roman  Doctrine  and  Man  in  His  Triple  Aspect 
— Religious,  Scientific  and  Social    ------  334 

Epilogue -----------  35a 

Appendix  -----------------  354 

Errata       -----------------  360 


PROLOGUE. 

Indulgent  Reader: 

You  may  never  have  had  the  opportunity  of  read- 
ing an  author  (a  Roman  Catholic  theologian)  whose 
purpose  was  to  defend  Christ  and  his  Church,  while 
refuting  official  Romanism. 

While  this  statement  may  appear  somewhat  para- 
doxical, I  believe  that  with  your  indulgence  and  pa- 
tience, it  can  be  made  plain  and  comprehensive. 

At  the  outset,  however,  it  must  be  stated,  that  if 
antagonistic  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine,  and  as 
one  of  its  enemies  you  expect  to  find  mention  here  of 
the  many  scandalous  historic  calumnies,  the  effective 
and  plausible  sophistries  frequently  directed  against 
that  Church,  you  will  be  bitterly  disappointed  and 
seek  in  vain,  for  all  such  mention  has  been  scrupu- 
lously avoided. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  a  Romanist,  and  you  hope  to 
find  in  this  work  a  defense  of  many  of  your  doctrines 
and  even  dogmas  of  your  present  Pontiff,  you  will 
likewise  be  disappointed. 

"  The  Pope's  pretended  monopoly  of  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  Bible,  his  authority,  temporal 
power,  infallibility  and  many  other  important  and 
serious  historical  and  theological  questions  are  herein 
clearly  set  forth  against  Romanism.  Should,  there- 
fore, such  conclusions  prove  odious  to  you,  it  is  hoped 
that  you  will  place  the  blame  where  it  belongs,  namely : 

(vii) 


Vlll  PROLOGUE. 

in  their  own  Philosophy,  Theology,  Exegesis,  and  also 
their  own  Apologetics. 

In  fact,  by  carefully  following  the  work  you  will 
satisfy  yourself  that  in  all  my  references  the  most 
renowned  and  conspicuous  authors  in  their  respective 
fields  have  been  selected.  For  example :  On  Philoso- 
phy I  refer  to  Cardinals  Gonzalez,  Zigliara,  etc. ;  on 
Theology,  many  quotations  are  taken  from  Billuart 
and  Cardinal  Noris,  who  are  recognized  as  the  most 
dignified  and  noblest  representatives  of  St.  Thomas' 
and  St.  Augustine's  schools;  supporting  the  above 
theologians  I  refer  to  such  authorities  as  Hurter,  Per- 
rone,  Bertier;  on  Canon  Law,  giants  of  such  promi- 
nence as  Bouix,  Cardinal  Vives  and  others  are  named ; 
on  Ecclesiastical  History,  Eusebio,  Baronio,  Rohr- 
bacher,  Rivas  and  Hergenrother  are  cited;  on  Apolo- 
getics I  quote  Moigno,  Hettinger,  Jaugey;  on  Exe- 
gesis, Comely,  Vigouroux,  Patrizi,  etc.,  have  been 
noted.  Thus  you  will  see  that  the  references  are  from 
the  most  learned,  most  profound  and  distinguished 
authors. 

During  the  course  of  this  writing  frequent  occa- 
sion has  been  found  to  refer  to  the  memorable  work 
of  His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  from  whose 
teachings  I  often  dissent.  I,  therefore,  may  be  par- 
doned for  appropriating  to  myself  the  words  of  that 
distinguished  prelate,  who  says :  "I  have  imbibed  her 
doctrines  (Roman  Catholic)  with  my  mother's  milk," 
as  to  that  doctrine;  I  have  also  consecrated  not  only 
my  early  days,  but  practically  all  my  life  has  been  lived 
in  Romanism. 

By  that  Church  I  have  been  deemed  worthy,  and 


PROLOGUE.  IX 

from  it  I  have  received  ample  applause  and  honorable 
distinction.  As  a  priest  and  a  gentleman  I  can  sol- 
emnly assure  you  under  oath,  that  I  possess  and  hold 
valid,  ample  and  perpetual  ministerial  faculties  from 
more  than  twelve  prominent  prelates,  and  other  spe- 
cial authorities  direct  from  the  Pope,  which  authori- 
ties are  not  ordinarily  granted  to  bishops,  much  less 
to  priests. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  say  that  no  pecuniary  self- 
interest  has  guided  me  in  this  work,  since  I  volun- 
tarily abandon  and  renounce  my  brilliant  ecclesiastical 
future  in  exchange  for  an  humble  and  burdensome 
manual  labor.  Neither  has  rancor  nor  any  other  igno- 
ble passion  prompted  me  in  my  writing.  Far  from 
being  discharged  of  the  Roman  Community,  I  am 
leaving  it  of  my  own  free  will,  after  refusing  exceed- 
ingly remunerative  offers. 

To  be  able  to  live  at  peace  with  my  conscience,  and 
to  proclaim  the  whole  truth,  is  the  only  inducement 
that  prompted  me  in  this  work,  which  I  submit  to 
your  generous  consideration. 

G.  V.  Fradryssa. 


INTRODUCTION. 

To  the  thoughtful  and  analytical  observer,  the  mod- 
ern religious  movement  of  the  vast  Christian  family 
when  comprehensively  viewed,  seems  to  embrace  two 
apparently  opposite  tendencies. 

On  the  one  hand,  there  is  a  tendency  towards 
decentralization,  where  centralization  has  been  the 
dominant  factor,  while  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
a  strong  and  growing  sentiment  toward  unification, 
where  heretofore  independence  of  thought  and  asso- 
ciation has  been  the  prevalent  idea.  In  Latin  and 
Catholic  Europe  there  are  springing  up,  from  time  to 
time,  each  time  with  greater  force,  keener  longings 
for  religious  expansion.  A  new  spirit  of  criticism 
invades  the  seminaries,  colleges  and  convents; 
thoughts  tending  toward  dogmatic  decentralization 
vibrate  everywhere.  In  the  face  of  old  tradition,  and 
of  a  dry  and  narrow  scholasticism,  a  stream  of  dar- 
ing theories  in  every  direction  flows  counter  to  the 
old  standards.  In  fine,  a  torrent  of  new  ideas  threat- 
ens to  overflow,  producing  an  inundation  in  the  realm 
of  religion,  similar  to  the  reform  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. 

Whoever  wishes  to  assure  himself  of  the  truth  of 
this  fact  needs  only  to  cast  a  rapid  glance  at  what  the 
present  Pope  has  just  condemned  under  the  name  of 
"Modernism." 

To  his   surprise,   he  will  there   see  this   tendency 

(xi) 


Xll  INTRODUCTION. 

clearly  outlined :  that  starting  from  the  biblical  exege- 
sis, it  has  spread  over  every  branch  of  human  knowl- 
edge, until  it  now  constitutes  a  distinct  doctrine.1 
Among  the  Anglo-Saxons  and  European  Protestants, 
on  the  contrary,  the  tendency  to  a  more  complete  and 
far-reaching  centralization  in  religious  affairs,  makes 
itself  more  and  more  manifest.  The  various  efforts  to 
establish  a  Central  Authority,  which  shall  assume  ev- 
ery right,  are  more  noticeable  in  religious  surround- 
ings. 

The  aim  to  establish  a  supreme  judge,  from  whom 
there  shall  be  no  appeal,  who  shall  silence  all  doubts, 
harmonize  all  discordant  rights,  become  the  founda- 
tion and  center  about  which  every  religious  sect  shall 
be  coordinated,  and  establish  its  fundamental  princi- 
ples, sparkles  in  every  controversy  on  modern  the- 
ology, reflects  itself  in  the  new  rituals  and  conciliatory 
assemblies,  and  sheds  light  upon  the  oft-repeated  at- 
tempts at  approximation,  which  nowadays  are  so  fre- 
quently made  by  the  Protestants.2  In  a  word,  while 
the  Latin  races,  in  a  somewhat  covert  but  energetic 

1The  Pope's  bull  against  Modernism  may  be  consulted  on 
this  subject;  also  the  explanation  of  this  matter  given  to  the 
Pope  by  various  Italian  priests,  and  an  amplified  translation 
of  the  same  in  English  also  by  clergymen ;  various  articles 
published  by  the  American  review,  The  Catholic  World,  im- 
mediately after  the  issuance  of  the  Encyclical.  The  Spanish 
reviews  entitled,  Razon  y  Fe  (Reason  and  Faith)  and  La 
Ciudad  de  Dios  (The  City  of  God),  may  also  be  consulted. 

2  See  as  to  this  point  the  work  entitled,  "Losses  and  Gains," 
by  the  converted  Protestant,  Newman.  Read  the  letters  of 
Fr.  Faber,  also  a  renowned  convert.  "The  Diary  of  a  Prot- 
estant Clergyman,"  published  by  The  Catholic  World.  Con- 
sult the  minutes  of  the  last  Protestant  meetings.  Read  the 
declarations  of  the  Episcopal  ministers  who  have  just  been 
converted  in  Baltimore  and  those  who  are  being  converted 
in  Chicago. 


INTRODUCTION.  Xlll 

manner,  approach  the  older  form  of  Protestantism,  in 
a  latent  but  none  the  less  pronounced  way,  the  Anglo- 
Saxons  are  coming  nearer  to  modern  Catholicism. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  double  and  antithetical 
movement?  How  can  we  find  a  common  cause  for 
this  twofold  divergence  of  ideas? 

The  loyalty,  learning  and  virtue  of  the  champions 
of  either  standard  cannot  be  questioned.  They  are  un- 
excelled for  their  integrity,  are  most  profound  in  their 
scientific  attainments,  and  are  of  the  noblest  of  man- 
kind in  their  lofty  purposes  and  their  simple  demand 
for  liberty  of  thought.  Such  is  the  character  of  those 
who  lend  their  weight  against  either  tendency,  or  stand 
in  the  forefront  as  a  vanguard  of  both  of  these  com- 
mendable and  glorious  armies. 

How,  then,  can  it  be  explained,  that  such  conspicu- 
ous soldiers  aspire  to  the  salvation  of  their  respective 
churches,  by  proclaiming  doctrines  so  antagonistic, 
and  practicing  such  contradictory  evolutions? 

This  modest  work  is  intended  partly  to  draw  aside 
the  curtain  which  envelops  this  phenomenon,  the  more 
so  as  we  note  with  sorrow,  that  Protestants  and  Catho- 
lics alike  often  overreach  themselves  in  their  assertions. 
While  the  former  too  frequently  heap  against  the 
Catholics  crimes  and  abuses  (not  always  confirmed 
by  history),  the  latter  are  wont  to  represent  Catholi- 
cism as  a  serpentless  Eden,  as  a  society  without  dis- 
cord, and  as  a  people  without  blemish,  all  of  which 
is  also  far  from  the  truth.  Between  these  two  ex- 
tremes, science  walks  serene. 

Let  us  then  exhibit  to  the  Protestants  the  internal 
and  actual   state  of   Catholicism,   analyze   its  princi- 


XIV  INTRODUCTION. 

pies,  lay  bare  its  institutions  and  methods,  unfold  its 
doctrines,  and  make  public  the  condition  of  its  col- 
lective conscience. 

I  undertake  this  laborious  work  because  the  Catho- 
lic pamphlets  that  have  come  into  my  hands  are  not 
always  well  authenticated,  not  always  truthful  in  ex- 
plaining the  Catholic  standards,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
are  deficient  in  many  cases,  and  incomplete  in  others.3 
Only  by  disclosing  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  can  the 
Protestant,  with  a  full  understanding  of  the  facts, 
decide  whether  it  is  advantageous  or  prejudicial  for 
him  to  abandon  his  own  religious  hearth  for  that  of 
a  stranger.  Thus,  and  only  thus,  can  he  honestly  and 
conscientiously  determine,  whether,  in  these  critical 
moments,  he  ought  to  lend  his  aid  with  Christian 
loyalty  to  the  Catholic  uplifting  already  begun,  by 
paralyzing  his  own. 

I  have  said  critical  moments,  because  there  can  be 
no  room  for  doubting,  that  Romanism  is  just  now 
passing  through  one  of  its  most  trying  crisis. 

The  time-worn  "Magister  dixit,"  invoked  by  the  old 
scholasticism  as  the  supreme  judge  in  the  decision  of 
all  controversies,  has  disappeared,  to  make  room  for 
the  scientific  investigation  of  doctrines  and  facts.  The 
absolute  and  unqualified  respect  for  authority,  as  the 
chief  regulator  of  the  individual  and  public  conscience, 
has  been  replaced  by  a  freedom  of  inquiry,  by  the 
tribunal  of  enlightened  reason,  by  the  conclusions  of 
unerring  science,  by  the  evidence  of  findings  of  an 
irrefutable  historic  light. 

8  We  refer  preferably  to  the  popular  book  entitled,  "The 
Faith  of  Our  Fathers,"  by  H.  E.  Cardinal  Gibbons. 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

The  longing  to  embrace  as  genuine  brothers,  those 
who  were  formerly  believed  to  be  dangerous  heretics, 
palpitates  in  the  vast  majority  of  Catholic  hearts.  An 
irrepressible  impulse  to  proclaim  as  legitimate  reform- 
ers, those  who  heretofore  were  designated  by  the  de- 
grading epithet  of  Protestants,  animates  most  minds. 
The  expansion  of  the  Bible,  and  the  teachings  of  the 
Saviour,  by  fusion  of  all  creeds  into  one  single  creed, 
and  of  all  congregations  into  one  single  congre- 
gation, professing  the  same  faith  and  receiving  the 
same  sacraments,  is  the  aim  and  the  idea  that  is  irre- 
sistibly subjugating  the  most  renowned  Catholic  per- 
sonages. And  in  case  this  universal  and  fraternal  em- 
brace should  become  a  reality,  in  what  nation  couffl  it 
be  attempted  with  greater  probability  of  success  than 
in  the  colossus  of  the  modern  world,  vast  and  highly 
civilized  North  America? 

Here,  as  nowhere  else  in  the  world,  one  lives  in  a 
vivifying  atmosphere  at  once  religious  and  tolerant. 
In  Old  Europe,  all  discussion  on  religion  arouses  the 
passions  and  awakens  sectarianism.  Religious  preju- 
dice has,  so  to  speak,  become  crystallized  in  the  con- 
science of  the  masses,  and  everything  is  looked  at 
through  its  dangerous  mirage. 

The  man  and  the  sect  hover  like  darkening  phan- 
toms overshadowing  truth  and  reason,  passion  flashes 
before  impartiality  illumines,  satire  and  sarcasm  take 
the  place  of  reason  and  deduction,  the  controversial 
criticism  becomes  hermetically  sealed  ere  the  sun  of 
science  can  throw  upon  it  the  light  of  its  resplendent 
rays.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  sympathetic  reception 
is  accorded  to  every  constructive  system,  let  it  come 
2 


XVI  INTRODUCTION. 

whence  it  may;  here  is  adopted  every  elevating  idea 
by  whomsoever  asserted;  here  all  honorable  institu- 
tions and  all  legitimate  rights  ase  held  equally  sacred, 
while  befitting  respect  is  paid  to  human  personality. 

Here  the  frequent  communication  between  citizens 
of  every  clime,  and  between  believers  of  every  form 
of  religion,  has  smoothed  all  bitterness  and  created  a 
deep  current  of  human  civilization. 

It  is  only  here  that  the  synagogue  by  the  side  of  the 
temple,  and  the  humble  Protestant  chapel  by  the  side 
of  the  sumptuous  Catholic  cathedral,  can  camp  in  the 
wide  avenues  without  one  or  the  other  arousing  in  the 
passer-by,  either  angry  protests  or  passionate  affec- 
tion, because  here  also  more  freely  than  elsewhere,  the 
bishop  side  by  side  with  the  rabbi,  and  the  minister 
side  by  side  with  the  priest,  move  in  society  without 
scandalous  clashes,  and  even  with  mutual  respect. 

To  you,  then,  most  excellent  American  people,  I 
dedicate  this  humble  work.  It  may  not  be  profound, 
but  it  is  honest;  it  may  not  be  always  scientific,  but  it 
is  inspired  by  a  deep  desire  to  proclaim  the  truth, 
and  dictated  by  a  yearning  for  the  betterment  of  the 
people. 


Roman  Catholicism  Capitulating 
Before  Protestantism. 


CHAPTER  I. 

DISCUSSION  OUTLINED. — ENUMERATION  OF  THE  FUNDA- 
MENTAL PRINCIPLES  ADMITTED  BY  BOTH  THE 
PROTESTANTS  AND  THE  CATHOLICS. 

IN  order  to  proceed  systematically  and  with  some 
hope  of  success  in  a  most  serious  and  intricate  re- 
ligious problem,  we  must  first  determine  whether  there 
be  any  fundamental  principle  which  is  admitted  alike 
by  Protestants  and  Catholics,  or  any  dogmatic  truth 
which  is  professed  and  believed  by  both  of  these 
religious  denominations.  Not  to  do  so,  would  be  to 
stray  from  the  question  at  the  very  outset.  To  ac- 
knowledge principles  which  would  be  admitted  only 
by  the  Catholics,  would  be  to  decide  in  advance  the 
question  in  their  favor,  and  against  the  Protestants. 
To  proclaim  truths  which  would  be  believed  only  by 
Protestants,  would  be  equivalent  to  deciding  the  mat- 
ter in  their  favor,  and  against  Catholicism. 

Our  discussion,  therefore,  should  be  based  on  these 
principles  and  truths  which  are  believed  and  admitted 
by  adherents  of  both  of  these  denominations.  Will 
this  be  possible?  Is  there  in  the  multitude  of  Chris- 
tian churches  any  principle  common  to  all?  Will  it 
be  possible  to  find  a  general  basis  in  which  that  whole 


2  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

series  of  institutions,  apparently  so  heterogeneous  and 
contradictory,  may  claim  to  be  founded?  Will  it  be 
possible  to  discover  in  that  mass  of  assertions  and 
denials,  of  codes  and  sacraments,  of  usages  and  cus- 
toms, a  central  truth  toward  which  all  the  others  con- 
verge, and  from  which  they  spring? 

Fortunately  we  can  say  that  such  a  principle,  such 
a  truth,  such  a  general  basis  common  to  all,  does  exist. 
We  may  add,  we  may  even  affirm,  that  the  primary 
truths  and  principles  of  the  entire  Protestant  Chris- 
tion  Church  are  identical  with  the  principles  and 
truths  of  Roman  Catholicism.  The  differences  and 
divisions  appear  afterwards,  in  the  secondary  prin- 
ciples and  in  later  issues. 

Let  us  begin  the  argument. 

First  assertion:  Catholicism  proclaims,1  and  the 
Protestant  believes,  that  Christ  is  God  and  the  Son 
of  God. 

Second  affirmation:  The  Protestant  believes,  and 
Catholicism  proclaims,  that  Christ  accomplished  the 
redemption  of  man ;  that  He  is  the  only  mediator  be- 
tween earth  and  Heaven,  between  sinful  humanity  and 
the  Supreme  Being.2 

The  third  assertion  is  so  fundamental  ana  compre- 
hensive, that  both  religious  denominations  agree.3  The 
Catholic  and  the  Protestant  alike  teach,  that  Christ 

1  Read  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  and  Concilium  Triden- 
tinum  De  Fide  (Concilium  of  Trent;   title,  On  Faith). 

aRead  same  authorities  as  citation  No.  I. 

8  See  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  any  Protestant  denomina- 
tion. Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe  (Dictionary 
Apologetic  of  Faith),  s.  v.  Jesucristo,  Iglesia.  Regla  de  Fe, 
Revelacion. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  3 

proclaimed  truths  which  must  be  believed,  formulated 
commandments  which  must  be  obeyed,  and  instituted 
sacraments  which  must  be  received,  if  we  wish  to  be 
saved.4  The  name  of  "Master"  is  given  to  Christ  in 
such  a  way,  that  Romanist  and  Protestant  both  agree 
that  He  is  the  only  teacher  of  the  dogma,  the  only 
lawgiver  of  ethics,  the  only  author  of  the  sacraments.5 
Both  further  agree  in  according  to  Christ  exclusively 
the  power  to  proclaim  dogmas,  to  formulate  com- 
mands, and  to  institute  sacraments.  It  follows  from 
this,  that  in  the  Catholic  as  well  as  in  the  Protestant 
theology,  any  sacrament  not  instituted  by  Christ  him- 
self and  not  originating  with  Him,  is  not  a  sacrament 
at  all,  but  a  false  and  damnable  institution.  A  dogma 
which  does  not  spring  from  Christ's  teachings,  is  not 
a  dogma  at  all,  but  an  arbitrary  human  imposition 
not  to  be  tolerated. 

Fourth  affirmation :  Christ  as  a  man  was  transitory 
and  mortal,  and  redemption  was  to  be  permanent, 
everlasting  and  universal.  Redemption  is  not  confined 
to  a  certain  people,  but  is  intended  for  all  men;  it  is 
not  limited  to  a  specific  era,  or  to  a  certain  race,  but 

4  Read  the  same  testimonies  mentioned  in  citation  No.  1. 

c  Read  the  same  authorities  mentioned  in  citation  No.  1  and 
also: — The  Protestants  are  referred  to  the  Encyclopedia 
Rritannica  for  titles  as  follows :  Luther  and  Lutherans,  vol. 
XI,  pp.  71  to  86;  Calvin,  vol.  IV,  pp.  714  to  720;  Presbyte- 
rian, vol.  XIX,  p.  339,  and  vol.  XXVIII,  p.  479;  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  vol.  XX,  p.  339,  and  vol.  VIII,  p.  493; 
Baptists,  vol.  Ill,  p.  353,  and  vol.  XXV,  p.  353;  Methodists, 
vol.  XVI,  p.  185,  and  vol.  XXVIII,  p.  79.  Catholics  may 
consult  Bcrtier's  Compendium  Theologicum :  titulo,  De  Reve- 
latione  et  Doctrina  Ecclesiae;  Perrone  et  Hurter:  the  same 
titles;  Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe  (Dictionary 
Apologetic  of  Faith),  s.  v.  Jesucristo,  Rcvelacion,  Iglesia. 


4  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

it  embraces  all  times  and  all  peoples.  It  was  neces- 
sary, then,  that  Christ  should  establish  His  Church  in 
such  a  way,  that  it  might  become  the  depository,  at 
once  dogmatic  and  ethical,  of  His  true  doctrine;  that 
it  might  be  the  guardian  of  His  true  worship,  and  the 
administrator  of  His  own  sacraments.  This  is  the 
reason  why  Catholics  as  well  as  Protestants  acknowl- 
edge the  existence  of  a  Church,  founded  by  Christ,8 
which  shall  be  at  once  the  synthesis  and  the  prolonga- 
tion of  His  sublime  work  throughout  the  centuries 
and  for  all  peoples.  But  for  Catholics  as  well  as  for 
Protestants,  the  Church  is  not  greater  than  Christ, 
nor  should  its  work  and  mission  go  so  far  as  to  inter- 
polate or  modify  His  teachings.  It  should  be  solely 
and  exclusively  the  true  echo  of  the  sovereign  voice 
of  Christ,  and  the  dispenser  of  his  mercies.7  Christ, 
and  Christ  alone,  is  the  splendid  sun  from  whom  pro- 
ceed, like  luminous  rays,  the  truths  which  the  Church 
shall  teach.  Christ,  and  Christ  alone,  is  the  only 
supernal  fountain  from  whom  shall  emanate,  like  liv- 
ing streams,  each  and  every  sacrament  which  the 
faithful  receive.  Christ,  and  Christ  alone,  is  the  mystic 
tree  implanted  in  the  midst  of  humanity,  and  from 
whom  shall  come  forth,  like  branches,  all  the  churches 
and  all  the  ecclesiastical  institutions. 

Behold,  then,  how,  amid  that  tangle  of  difference 
which  actually  separates  one  creed  from  another,  yet 
both   acknowledge   the   same   fundamental   principles. 

6  Perrone :  De  Vera  Religione.  P.  Fernandez :  Teologia 
Dogmatica ;    same  head. 

7  Confession  of  Augsburg.  Concilium  Tridentinum ;  De 
Fide  et  Revelatione  (Concilium  of  Trent;  Of  Faith  and 
Revelation).    Perrone:    De  Vera  Religione, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  5 

Behold,  then,  how,  in  that  mass  of  curses  and  bless- 
ings, of  denials  and  assertions,  of  hates  and  loves, 
which  constitute  the  actual  character  of  the  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  both  at  the  same  time  proclaim  Jesus 
as  their  Lord  and  Master,  His  Church  as  a  legitimate 
association,  and  the  depository  of  His  dogma  and 
ethical  teachings.  And  who  would  believe  it,  if  it 
were  not  recorded  on  the  pages  of  history  in  charac- 
ters of  blood,  that  the  very  men  who  confessed  Jesus 
as  their  Lord,  and  His  Church  as  the  legitimate  Church, 
waxed  wroth  with  one  another  as  if  the  true  doctrine 
of  Christ  meant  nothing?  In  the  name  of  Jesus  and 
in  the  name  of  His  Church,  the  stakes  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion were  set  aflame,  and  in  indescribable  torment 
thousands  of  the  best  men  perished  who  proclaimed 
Christ  as  their  Lord,  His  doctrine  as  a  divine  doctrine, 
and  His  Gospel  as  the  only  Gospel  leading  to  salvation.8 
In  the  name  of  Jesus  and  His  Church,  the  gallows 
was  raised  in  England,  as  the  stake  was  blazing  in 
Spain.9  In  the  name  of  Jesus  and  His  Church,  Calvin 
decreed  that  the  immortal  Servetus  should  die,  as  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  and  His  Church,  Alexander  VI 
signed  the  death  warrant  of  the  great  Savonarola.10 
In  the  name  of  Jesus  and  His  Church,  desolation  and 
death,  curses  and  execrations,  anathemas  and  excom- 
munications, bitter  quarrels  among  men  and  factional 
fights  among  cities,  filled  the  land.11 

8  Capa  :   La  Inquisicion  Espanola. 

"La  Fuente:  Spanish  Histories  of  the  sixteenth  and  sev- 
enteenth centuries.  Robertson  (Scottish  historian)  :  His- 
tories of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries. 

10Rivas:    Historia  Eclesiastica;    title,  Siglo  XVI. 

11  Castelar :    Revolution  Religiosa,  vol.  II,  chap.  ii. 


6  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

I  have  briefly  referred  to  these  unhappy  occurrences 
for  the  reason  that  the  subsequent  chapters  cannot  be 
studied  to  advantage,  if  we  do  not  view  the  subject 
dispassionately,  and  set  aside  our  inherited  prejudices. 
If  we  seek  Christ  faithfully  and  sincerely,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  His  doctrine — which,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
is  eminently  a  doctrine  of  universal  love — should  sepa- 
rate us  one  from  the  other.  It  is  impossible  that  our 
hearts  should  not  beat  in  unison,  and  that  we  should 
not  all  be  fused  in  one  great  universal  Church. 

Let  us  weigh  well  in  our  minds  the  fundamental 
principles  applicable  to  all:  The  divinity  of  Christ 
and  the  legitimacy  of  His  Church.  At  the  same  time 
let  us  not  diminish  the  power  of  Christ  nor  magnify 
that  of  His  Church.  Let  us  not  reject  any  of  the 
authentic  teachings  of  Christ,  nor  deny  any  of  His 
precepts,  nor  belittle  any  of  His  sacraments.  To  do  so 
would  be  to  separate  ourselves  from  Him,  to  turn 
away  from  His  spiritual  body,  to  deny  the  divine 
efficacy  of  His  splendid  mission.  And  let  us  not  un- 
duly exalt  His  Church,  nor  concede  to  it  greater 
powers  than  rightfully  belong  to  it.  To  do  this  would 
be  to  elevate  the  Church  at  the  expense  of  Christ,  to 
proclaim  the  Church  a  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  a  man. 

By  merely  noting  these  two  fundamental  principles, 
our  discussion  will  be  to  some  purpose,  harmony  will 
become  possible,  and  we  shall  be  able  to  arrive  at  our 
convincing  conclusion.  For,  as  will  be  shown  in  the 
succeeding  chapters,  all  the  differences  that  have  arisen 
are  due  to  the  modification  of  the  one  or  the  other 
of  these  two  principles:  namely,  conceding  to  the 
Church  on  the  one  hand,  prerogatives  which  Christ 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  7 

himself  did  not  concede  to  it;  and  supposing  on 
the  other  hand,  that  institutions  which  are  of  purely 
human  origin,  are  derived  from  Christ. 

Let  us  be  careful  to  distinguish  the  divine  from  the 
human,  the  fundamental  from  the  accessory,  the  transi- 
tory from  the  permanent ;  and  in  order  to  accomplish 
this,  let  us  examine  from  time  to  time  Christ  and  His 
Church ;  and  let  us  never  admit  any  doctrine  as  divine, 
unless  coming  from  Christ  himself;  let  us  concede 
nothing  to  the  Church  which  Christ  would  not  have 
conceded  to  it. 


CHAPTER  II. 

DISCUSSION  AND  OUTLINE  OF  THE  MEANS  OF  KNOWING 
CHRIST. 

WE  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  our 
only  Master  is  Christ,  that  all  our  institutions 
and  sacraments  connected  with  the  spiritual  life  should 
have  their  origin  with  Him.  But  we  have  not  had 
the  ineffable  happiness  of  being  called  personally  to 
His  apostleship ;  the  inexpressible  consolation  of  hear- 
ing from  His  adorable  lips,  His  splendid  and  divine 
doctrine  of  salvation,  has  not  been  vouchsafed  to  us. 
How,  then,  shall  we  be  able  to  receive  the  light  of  the 
Gospel?  How  may  we  know  its  dogmas  in  order  to 
believe  them?  How  find  its  true  teachings  in  order 
to  follow  them?  How  distinguish  its  true  sacraments 
in  order  to  receive  them?  How  recognize  the  true 
Church  in  order  to  embrace  it?  Here  we  have  the 
fundamental  questions,  the  answers  to  which  are  of 
vital  interest  alike  to  Catholics  and  Protestants,  to 
believers  and  unbelievers.  What  means  has  divine 
Providence  provided  for  humanity  to  enable  it  to  know 
Christ  and  enter  His  Church,  and  become  a  member 
or  part  of  His  spiritual  body? 

If  Christ  and  His  Church  were  not  within  the  reach 
of  every  human  being,  then  the  advent  and  the  re- 
demption of  our  adorable  Saviour  would  have  been 
in  vain.  What  avails  it  to  proclaim  the  divinity  of 
Christ  and  the  efficacy  of  His  redemption,  the  purity 
(8) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  9 

of  His  precepts  and  the  infallibility  of  His  doctrine, 
if,  after  all,  we  should  remain  unenlightened  as  to 
His  person  and  His  Church  ? 

The  one  affirmation  is  the  complement  of  the  other. 
If  the  Eternal  One  sent  His  Divine  Son  to  save  man- 
kind; if  His  Divine  Son  saved  and  redeemed  man- 
kind, and  as  a  continuation  of  His  adorable  mission, 
established  His  Church,  it  was  necessary,  it  was  indis- 
pensable, that  there  should  be  a  simple  and  easy  way 
to  know  and  find  Christ,  to  know  and  find  His  Church, 
to  know  and  find  His  doctrine,  His  precepts,  His  sacra- 
ments. To  affirm  the  first,  without  affirming  the  sec- 
ond, would  be  to  imply  a  deficiency  in  His  divine 
work;  but  this  is  a  blasphemy  which  would  involve 
the  denial  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  Himself,  the  de- 
struction of  Providence,  and  the  annihilation  of  all 
religion,  both  revealed  and  positive.  Therefore,  as  we 
affirm  the  existence  and  divinity  of  Christ,  the  exist- 
ence and  indestructibility  of  His  Church,  we  should 
also  affirm,  that  there  are  simple  and  universal  ways 
of  knowing  Christ  and  His  Church.  But  what  are 
these  ways?  Which  is  the  safe  road?  What  course 
shall  we  take  in  order  that  we  may  definitely  say, 
"At  last  I  have  found  Christ.  I  have  found  His 
Church"? 

In  attempting  to  answer  this  most  serious  question 
we  come  upon  the  points  of  opposition  between 
Catholics  and  Protestants ;  differences  between  the 
two  begin  to  appear.  But  in  seeking  a  veritable  and 
sincerely  Christian  criterion,  fortified  by  sound  theo- 
logical reasoning,  and  calling  to  our  aid  clarified  his- 
torical testimony,  we  confidently  hope  to  remove  and 


10  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

solve  all  the  difficulties  in  our  path  to  the  satisfaction 
of  both  the  religious  denominations. 

Let  us  hear  first  the  answer  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
theology.  It  begins  by  affirming  the  priority,  saying 
to  the  believer : x  "I  am  the  only  Church  founded  by 
Christ,  and  for  that  reason  the  only  true  one.  I  pos- 
sess the  divine  prerogative  of  infallibility,  and  for  that 
reason,  I  only  can  guide  you  to  Christ  without  devia- 
tion and  without  error;  I  can  show  you  His  dogmas 
as  they  are;  His  ethical  teachings  without  mystifica- 
tion; His  sacraments  truly  and  without  addition. 
Hear  me,  for  whoever  hears  me,2  hears  Christ;  obey 
me,  for  whoever  obeys  me,  obeys  Christ;  follow  me, 
for  whoever  follows  me,  follows  Christ."  This,  in 
brief,  is  the  answer  of  Romanism.3 

Let  us  explain  this  more  fully.  The  answer  to  be 
given  to  the  above  questions  should  be  universal  and 
general  in  nature ;  it  should  be  applicable  to  all  times, 
to  all  peoples,  and  to  all  classes  of  society.  If  it  is 
not  applicable  to  a  given  epoch  in  history,4  if  it  is  not 

1  Bertier :  Compendium  Theologicum ;  De  Vera  Ecclesia. 
Casanova:    Theologia  Fundamental;    De  Vera  Ecclesia. 

2  Hettinger :  Theologia  Fundamental ;  De  la  Iglesia  Ro- 
mana,  Spanish  translation.  Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico, 
s.  v.  Iglesia. 

8 1  will  say  right  here  that  notwithstanding  my  title  of 
Doctor  of  Theology,  notwithstanding  that  I  have  studied  and 
taught  this  great  and  perspicuous  science,  I  have  never  been 
able  to  find  this  answer  sufficient  and  adequate;  I  have  never 
considered  this  affirmation  effective  and  rational;  nay,  more, 
I  have  always  regarded  it  as  a  "begging  the  question"  and 
an  obvious  contradiction  to  other  clear  and  definite  doctrines 
of  the  Church. 

4  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico ;  s.  v.  Razon,  Revela- 
cion,  Conocimiento  Religioso.  Moigno:  Esplendores  de  la 
Fe.     (The  Spanish  translation  of  both  of  these  works.) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  II 

applicable  to  any  given  people,  if  it  is  not  applicable 
to  each  and  every  person  individually,  then  it  is  not 
a  legitimate  procedure,  and  hence  the  answer  is  false 
and  should  be  rejected  as  inadequate  and  contradic- 
tory. 

Now  let  us  suppose,  that  instead  of  giving  the  an- 
swer in  this  twentieth  century,  we  should  have  been 
asked  to  give  it  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  most  critical 
period  of  Romanism,  when  there  were  three  Popes : 5 
one  in  Spain — Benedict  XIII;  another  at  Avignon 
— Clement  VI ;  and  the  third  in  Rome — Gregory  IX. 
Each  of  them  had  a  large  following  in  the  Church ; 
each  one  had  his  cardinals  who  had  elected  him  and 
proclaimed  him  to  be  legitimate;  his  doctors  of  the- 
ology who  defended  him,  kings  who  obeyed  him,  and 
saints  since  canonized,  who  believed  in  him.6  To  which 
of  these  three  Churches,  then,  should  we  send  the  man 
who  wants  to  believe?  For  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  according  to  the  Roman  Catholic  theology  the 
faithful  without  the  Pope  are  a  little  less  than  nothing, 
while  the  Pope  without  the  faithful  is  the  Church, 
the  whole  Church.  Let  us  suppose  that  all  the  nations 
should  renounce  the  Pope,  that  all  the  faithful  should 
turn  away  from  him,  then  he  alone  would  constitute 
the  entire  Church,  all-sufficient  and  adequate  in  him- 
self ; 7  and  all  the  faithful  and  all  the  nations  would 
be  as  nothing  but  error  and  heresy.     Don't  imagine 

cRohrbacher  and  Baronio:  Historia  Eclesiastica ;  Cismas 
de  Occidente. 

6Alzog:  Historia  Eclesiastica;  Cismas  de  Occidente. 
Rivas :    Lecciones   de  Historia  Eclesiastica ;    same  title. 

7  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe ;  title,  Papa, 
Iglesia.  Maistre :  Del  Papa.  Pio  IX :  Enciclica  a  los  P.  P. 
del  Vaticano. 


12  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

that  we  are  inventing  doctrines ;  we  are  merely  stating 
the  most  essential  and  positive  tenets  of  the  Roman 
theology,  as  anyone  may  see  who  will  look  up  the 
authorities  to  whom  we  refer  in  our  notes.  If,  then, 
the  Pope  without  the  faithful  is  the  Church,  the  whole 
Church,  and  the  faithful  without  the  Pope  cannot  of 
themselves  constitute  a  Church,  to  which  of  the  three 
Churches  should  we  send  the  faithful,  at  the  time  of 
the  three  Popes? 

If,  then,  we  could  not  accept  that  answer  in  the 
period  of  the  Middle  Ages,  neither  can  we  accept  it 
now,  for  do  not  forget,  that  according  to  the  Roman- 
istic  theology,  the  answer,  in  order  to  be  a  valid  one 
must  be  universal  and  applicable  to  every  period  of 
time ;  for  if  there  be  found  any  period  which  this  an- 
swer does  not  cover  and  to  which  it  does  not  apply, 
then  the  answer  is  not  a  valid  one,  but  is  false.8 
Hence,  if  it  did  not  apply  to  certain  specified  circum- 
stances in  the  Middle  Ages,  neither  does  it  apply  now, 
and  therefore  it  is  not  general ;  if  it  would  have  been 
inadequate  and  contradictory  then,  it  is  inadequate  and 
contradictory  now ;  therefore  it  is  not  universal.  Fur- 
thermore, who  can  assure  the  Roman  Catholic  that, 
as  schisms  rent  the  unity  of  Romanism  in  past  times, 
so  schisms  may  not  rise  to  disturb  the  Church  in  times 
to  come?  In  case  this  should  happen — and  it  is  not 
outside  of  the  limit  of  probability — how  should  we 
answer  the  man  who  wants  to  believe?  to  which 
Church  should  we  send  him?  And  in  the  interreg- 
num between  the  death  of  a  Pope  and  the  election  of 

8  Abate  Moigno:  Esplendores  de  la  Fe.  Jaugey:  Demos- 
tracion  Religiosa. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  1 3 

his  successor,  what  shall  we  say  to  the  man  who  comes 
to  us  for  advice  ?  Shall  we  say  to  him  in  this  case : 9 
Now  we  are  in  a  period  of  transition,  at  this  moment 
we  are  without  a  head ;  we  lack  the  most  fundamental 
and  constitutive  part  of  the  Church;  and  while  this 
transitional  period  lasts,  we  cannot  give  you  any 
definite  advice,  because  we  are  not  infallible;  we  shall 
be  so  before  long,  and  then  we  will  guide  you  calmly 
and  without  danger ;  for  the  present  keep  your  faith  in 
abeyance  and  restrain  your  desire  to  join  us,  for  soon, 
very  soon,  we  shall  have  among  us  our  infallible  Pope 
and  then  we  shall  be  a  whole  and  complete  society. 
Is  there  anyone  who  does  not  perceive  the  absurdity 
of  this  reasoning?  If  the  conclusion  is  absurd,  then 
the  premises  from  which  it  derives  are  equally  absurd, 
and  consequently  such  antiquated  affirmations  can  no 
longer  be  supported  in  this,  our  twentieth  century. 

And  again  there  is  brought  forward  a  great  soph- 
ism, known  as  a  "begging  the  question,"  referring 
back  to  the  scholastic  philosophy,  which  is  the  official 
philosophy  of  Romanism.  To  what  kind  of  arguments 
has  Romanism  recourse,  on  which  it  seeks  to  base  its 
claims  of  being  the  legitimate  Church,  and  on  which 
it  seeks  to  found  the  many  prerogatives  it  attributes 
to  itself?  Who  are  the  teachers  that  say  to  Roman- 
ism, It  shall  be  thus?  Whence  does  it  derive  the 
assertion  that  it  rests  on  solid  foundations,  that  its 
dogmas  are  unerring,  that  its  ethical  teachings  are 
pure,  and  that  its   sacraments  are  genuine?     From 

•Famosisima  carta  dc  Pio  IX' a  los  P.  P.  del  Concilio 
Vaticano.  (Famous  letter  from  Pius  IX  to  the  P.  P.  of  the 
Vatican  Concilium.) 


14  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  Divine  Word,10  from  the  authority  of  Christ. 
Nothing  that  is  not  contained  in  this  Word,  says  the 
theologian,  may  claim  to  be  infallible,  nothing  that 
does  not  proceed  from  the  authority  of  Christ  may 
claim  to  be  divine ; X1  man,  individually  and  collect- 
ively, shall  receive  and  venerate  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
such  as  He  taught  it,  and  yield  obedience  such  as 
Christ  demanded  it,  and  there  is  no  human  power  on 
earth,  be  it  called  a  believer  or  a  priest,  be  it  called  a 
bishop  or  a  cardinal,  be  it  called  a  king  or  a  pope, 
be  it  called  nation  or  concilium,  which  may  alter  one 
iota  of  that  which  Christ  has  taught  or  imposed.12 
This  is  a  theological  doctrine  common  both  to  Catho- 
lics and  Protestants.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  the 
Church  must  continually  seek  in  the  Bible  for  each 
and  every  one  of  her  dogmas,  each  and  every  one  of 
her  sacraments,  each  and  every  one  of  her  preroga- 
tives. If  she  must  admit  to  us,  then,  that  she  holds 
nothing  that  has  not  been  commanded  by  the  Bible 
and  by  Christ,  why  not  go  directly  to  Christ  and  His 
Gospels?  If  she  believes  in  her  own  affirmations,  if 
she  admits  that  they  are  all  derived  spontaneously 
from  the  infallible  doctrine  of  Christ,  why  this  out- 
cry, when  the  faithful  study  for  themselves  those  same 
Gospels,  and  seek  with  the  light  of  their  own  under- 
standing for  that  which  the  Bible  teaches,  and  which 

10  Perrone :  De  Vera  Religione.  Bertier :  De  Doctrina 
Ecclesise.  Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe,  s.  v. 
Iglesia,  Biblia. 

11  Concilium  Tridentinum  et  Vaticanum;  De  Fide  (The 
Conciliums  of  Trent  and  of  the  Vatican;  sections  of  the 
Faith).     Sacra  Scriptura  et  Revelatione. 

_ 12  P.  Fernandez :    Theologia  Dogmatica  De  Doctrina  Eccle- 
siae.    Hettinger :  Theologia  Fundamental  De  Sagrada  Escritura. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 5 

is  so  clear  and  self-evident?  This  outcry13  is  not 
rational  or  justifiable ;  this  anxiety  to  keep  the  Gospels 
from  the  believers  injures  her  grievously,  instead 
of  working  to  her  advantage,  because  it  creates  a 
prejudice  against  her,  for  the  believer  says  to  himself: 
You  affirm  that  you  are  the  one  legitimate,  the  only 
true  Church,  because  the  Gospels  and  Christ  proclaim 
it  thus,  and  then  you  command  me:  Do  not  read  the 
Gospels  except  under  my  tutelage;  do  not  seek  to 
know  Christ  except  under  my  authority.  But  who 
will  guarantee  me  that  your  tutelage  is  the  legiti- 
mate one?  Who  will  assure  me  that  your  authority 
is  incontrovertible? 

This  rejoinder  is  one  that  may  rise  to  the  lips  of  any 
believer  who  reflects,  and  if  to  this  reflection  is  added 
some  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  logic,  then  he  may 
say  further:  You  affirm  that  you  are  the  only  legiti- 
mate Church,  because  Christ  and  His  Divine  Word 
teach  it  so;  you  affirm  that  Christ  and  the  Divine 
Word  proclaim  it  so,  because  you  teach  it  so,  because 
you  interpret  it  so.  Thus  you  beg  the  question  and 
you  fall  into  a  vicious  circle,  because  you  derive  the 
validity  of  one  principle  from  the  validity  of  another 
that  you  have  taken  for  granted,  without  having  previ- 
ously proved  the  rationality  of  either  of  the  two,  which 
might  serve  as  the  basis  and  point  of  departure.  This 
is  precisely  what  in  your  own  philosophy  14  is  called 

"Leo  XIII:  Enciclica  sobre  los  estudios  biblicos.  Reglas 
del  Indice,  by  the  same  Pope,  in  which  the  reading  of  the 
Bible  is  forbidden  under  penalty  of  severe  punishment,  unless 
it  be  read  under  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  Popes. 

14  Cardenal   Zigliara :     Philosophia   Escolastica,   Logica;    De 
Sophismatibus.    Cardinal  Gonzalez :    Filosoha  Tomista;    same 
title. 
3 


l6  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  sophism  of  the  begging  the  question,  the  soph- 
ism of  the  vicious  circle.  This  certainly  may  deceive 
the  ignorant  old  woman  whose  stock  of  reasoning 
does  not  go  beyond  her  breviary.  But  take  a  person 
of  education  who  knows  Christ  and  His  Gospels ;  who 
has  passed  from  them  to  the  apostles  and  the  men  of 
the  apostolic  age;  has  then  studied  the  first  centuries 
of  Christianity  and  the  lives  of  the  first  believers,  with 
their  primitive  reunions,  the  foundings  of  the  first 
congregations,  with  their  divisions  and  conciliums; 
passing  thence  to  the  quarrels  and  schisms  of  the 
Middle  Ages  and  through  the  Vatican  down  to  the 
dawn  of  the  modern  era;  listening  to  the  Fathers 
assembled  at  Basle  and  Constance ; 15  and  turning 
from  them  to  the  prelates  congregated  at  the  present 
time  at  the  Council  of  the  Vatican — to  proclaim  off- 
hand and  as  if  by  the  way,  to  such  a  man,  moderately 
well  versed  in  such  studies,  the  existence  and  indefecti- 
bility  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  to  rear  up  on  this 
statement  that  whole  religious  system,  is  like  the  at- 
tempt to  erect  a  grand  edifice  without  a  foundation, 
making  it  stand  insecure  at  the  very  outset;  it  is 
equivalent  to  undermining  his  faith  and  driving  him 
into  the  most  crude  rationalism. 

Finally,  the  conduct  of  the  Roman  Church  is  not 
logically  consistent  with  itself  and  is  contradictory  to 
the  latest  definitions  that  have  just  been  laid  down  by 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican.  This  Council  condemns 
the  philosophic  system  called  Traditionalism,  and  pur- 

15Rivas:  Historia  Eclesiastica ;  Concilio  de  Constanza  y 
Basilea  (Conciliums  of  Constance  and  Basle).  Rohrbacher: 
same  title. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  IJ 

suant  to  its  condemnation  it  proclaims,  that  reason 
unaided  is  able  to  arrive  at  the  demonstration  of  the 
existence  of  a  personal  and  infinite  God ;  that  unaided, 
it  can  demonstrate  the  divinity  of  Christ  ;1C  that  reason 
unaided  can  investigate  and  determine  with  certainty, 
which  among"  all  the  religions  is  the  true  one.  If 
reason  unaided  can  arrive  at  those  fundamental  and 
self-evident  conclusions,  then  why  forbid  it  to  examine 
these  questions  except  under  the  authority  of  the 
Church  ?  Why  proclaim,  on  the  one  hand,  that  reason 
is,  so  to  speak,  of  age  and  capable  of  self-guidance, 
and  then  immediately  affirm  its  incapacity  and  declare 
it  to  be  still  a  minor  and  under  the  tutelage  of  the 
Church?  Is  not  this  an  obvious  contradiction?  If 
the  authority  of  the  Vatican  Council  is  upheld,  why 
not  also  uphold  the  truths  of  its  utterances?  If  the 
Romanists,  leaning  upon  the  Council,  proclaim  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pope,  on  what  grounds  do  they 
forbid  other  Catholics,  who  lean  upon  the  same  Coun- 
cil, to  proclaim  in  their  turn  the  sovereignty  of  reason 
in  rinding  Christ  and  His  true  Church? 

Summing  up  this  long  chapter,  then,  we  affirm  that 
the  ancient  criterion  of  the  Roman  Church,  which  in- 
sisted on  taking  the  believer  by  the  hand  and  leading 
him  into  the  knowledge  of  Christ  and  His  Church, 
can  no  longer  be  accepted  in  this  twentieth  century, 
for  it  meets  with  the  opposition  of  the  Catholic  phi- 
losophy and  theology,  the  history  of  the  Church,  and 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican. 

18  Concilium  of  the  Vatican ;  De  Ratione  et  Fide. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   ONLY    SURE    WAY    OF    KNOWING    CHRIST    AND    HIS 
CHURCH   IS  THROUGH  THE  GOSPELS. 

THE  principle  of  authority  having  been  dismissed 
in  the  previous  chapter,  we  have  no  other  ration- 
al and  adequate  means  of  knowing  Christ  and  His 
Church,  except  in  the  Word  of  God,  the  Bible.  We 
do  not  believe  that  this  way  is  free  from  difficulties ; 
still  we  may  say,  that  they  are  less  than  in  the  Roman 
system,  and  that  Protestantism,  in  setting  the  Bible 
above  the  Church  and  giving  it  preference  to  the 
Church,  has  taken  a  step  forward  instead  of  going 
backwards,  and  has  instituted  a  beneficial  reform  in- 
stead of  a  dangerous  practice.  We  beg  the  Catholic 
who  has  not  been  fully  convinced  by  the  reasons  which 
have  been  brought  forward,  to  follow  us  further  with 
patience,  for  in  the  succeeding  chapters  he  may  per- 
haps see  how  one  after  the  other  all  the  objections  of 
Romanism  on  this  point  will  disappear.  At  the  same 
time  he  will  come  to  see  that  the  Protestant  reason- 
ing is  better  adapted  than  the  Roman  system,  to  de- 
fending the  catholic  faith  and  checking  the  steadily 
growing  advance  of  rationalism.  But  in  order  that 
we  may  not  be  accused  either  of  a  diffuse  or  incom- 
plete statement  of  the  question,  we  will  here  remind 
the  reader  of  the  limits  that  we  have  set  ourselves  in 
the  beginning.  We  are  addressing  Catholics  as  well 
as  Protestants,  both  of  whom  believe  in  the  divinity 
(18) 


CAriTULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  IO, 

of  Christ  and  in  the  infallible  efficacy  of  His  rule.1 
Therefore  we  shall  not  stop  to  prove  what  they  already 
concede  to  us  as  articles  of  their  faith. 

Both  Catholics  and  Protestants  uphold  the  existence 
of  a  Biblical  canon,  and  as  this  canon,  in  the  New 
Testament,  hardly  differs  in  the  two  denominations, 
we  admit  it  as  valid,  with  the  restrictions  imposed  by 
Protestantism.  The  Catholic,  in  following  the  unfold- 
ment  of  the  doctrine,  will  see  that  there  is  nothing 
alarming  in  this  slight  concession. 

But  let  not  the  reader  expect  us  to  stop  and  enter 
into  historical  disquisitions  in  order  to  determine  the 
legitimacy  of  the  canon.  Why  should  we  take  up  time 
with  questions  which  both  denominations  already 
concede  to  us  ? 2  Since  Catholics  as  well  as  Prot- 
estants believe  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  all  the 
books  included  in  the  canon,  we  shall  similarly  not 
touch  upon  the  numerous  exegetical  questions  on  this 
point  discussed  in  both  of  the  denominations.3  Our 
discussion  admits  and  regards  as  valid  all  the  theories, 
from  the  most  restrictive  to  the  most  liberal ;  from  the 
theory  which  would  confine  the  divine  inspiration,  to 
those  passages  only  which  deal  with  the  dogma,  with 
ethics  and  with  the  sacraments,  to  the  theory  which 
holds  that  each  and  every  one  of  the  sentences,  words, 

1  The  Augsburg  Confession :  Concilium  Tridentinum  et 
Vaticanum;  De  Christi  Magisterio  et  Fide  (Trent  and  Vatican 
Councils;    Christ's  Magistery :    On  Faith). 

2  Read  any  Protestant  author  on  the  subject.  For  Catholics, 
consult:  Patrizi :  De  Inspiratione.  Vigouroux:  Manual  Bib- 
lico;    same  title. 

*  Consult  Comely :  Manual  Exegetico  y  Hcrmeneutico.  Also 
Vigouroux:  where  all  the  theories  are  expounded.  Jaugey: 
s.  v.  Interpretation  biblica  (Biblical  interpretation). 


20  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

accents  and  commas  is  inspired.  Without  passing 
judgment  upon  any  of  these  theories,  without  favor- 
ing or  condemning  any  one  of  these  schools,  we  say 
that  the  most  restrictive,  and  on  better  grounds  still, 
the  most  liberal  theory  suffices  for  our  discussion. 

Nor  shall  we  refer  to  the  Old  Testament  in  our  dis- 
cussion. As  we  are  not  required  to  demonstrate  the 
divinity  of  Christ  nor  the  divinity  of  His  Church, 
why  should  we  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  when 
all  its  virtue  and  efficacy  consist  chiefly  in  being  the 
preamble  and  annunciator  of  the  New  Testament? 
Why  appeal  to  the  ancient  symbolism,  when  we  pos- 
sess the  living  reality?  Why  question  the  prophets 
regarding  that  which  Christ  might  say,  when  we  pos- 
sess the  same  Christ  speaking  for  himself?  Why 
seek  light  from  the  forerunners,  when  we  possess  the 
Messiah  himself,  speaking  clearly  in  his  own  voice? 
To  go  to  the  Old  Testament  would  be  equivalent  to 
saying,  that  the  symbol  is  clearer  than  the  reality 
symbolized,  that  the  prophet  is  more  explicit  than  the 
thing  about  which  he  has  prophesied ;  in  other  words, 
that  the  penumbra  is  brighter  than  the  light,  that  the 
dawn  is  more  brilliant  than  the  splendid  sun  from 
which  it  proceeds.  Therefore  we  admit  and  need  for 
our  demonstration  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  and 
the  apostolic  writings. 

Why  should  we  not  do  so,  if  the  first  churches 
were  established  before  the  redaction  of  the  Gospels  ?  4 
Why  not,  if  in  the  first  days  of  Christianity  the  apos- 

4  Following  authors  :  Rohrbacher,  Baronio  and  Rivas  :  His- 
toria  Eclesiastica ;  Fundacion  de  las  primeras  Iglesias  (Ec- 
clesiastical History;    title,  Foundation  of  first  Churches). 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  21 

ties  were  the  living  Gospels,  the  incorruptible  wit- 
nesses of  the  Word  of  Christ,  and  those  who,  finally, 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  committed 
that  Word  to  writing-  in  the  four  Gospels  and  in  their 
many  epistles,  well  along  in  the  first  century?  To  set 
aside  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  setting  aside  the  Gospels  themselves,  and  de- 
molishing the  fundamental  basis  of  the  Divine  Word. 
Here  we  have,  then,  the  aggregate  of  the  books  that 
will  enable  us  to  know  Christ  and  His  Church:  the 
four  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles.  Here 
we  have  that  which  will  serve  us  as  a  standard,  as  an 
infallible  guide.  Oh,  how  our  spirit  is  calmed !  How 
our  heart  is  pacified !  How,  our  anxiety  is  removed ! 
No,  do  not  let  us  remain  at  the  mercy  of  that  which 
resolves  itself  into  a  human  personality.  Do  not  let 
us  run  the  risk  of  having  our  dogmas  changed  or 
extended,  of  having  additions  or  modifications  made 
in  our  moral  code;  of  having  our  sacraments  sup- 
pressed and  new  ones  instituted.  If  our  confession 
of  faith  is  fixed  once  and  for  all,  it  will  remain  the 
same  throughout  the  centuries;  it  will  be  attainable 
alike  by  all  men  and  all  nations ;  it  will  always  remain 
whole  in  the  midst  of  all  perplexities  and  disturbances. 
What  will  it  matter  to  the  believer,  then,  that  there  are 
divisions  and  apostasies?  What  will  it  matter  to  the 
believer  then,  that  there  are  one  or  two  pontiffs  in  the 
chair  of  Peter?  What  will  it  matter  to  him,  that  many 
priests  are  losing  their  faith,  that  public  morals  are 
corrupted,  that  the  scribe  and  the  Pharisee  are  stand- 
ing in  the  pulpit?  Safe  above  all  and  beyond  all,  the 
august  voice  of  Christ  shall  then  be  ever  heard;  the 


22  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

voice  of  Christ  in  accents  of  thunder  unceasingly  pro- 
claiming His  Gospel — "These  are  my  precepts  which 
will  not  change,  though  the  centuries  may  change ;  this 
is  my  dogma  which  may  not  be  altered,  though  the 
customs  may  alter;  these  are  my  sacraments,  which 
will  not  be  increased  or  diminished,  though  my  fol- 
lowers may  increase  or  diminish." 

There  is  no  doubt  but  that  on  this  point  Protestant- 
ism has  taken  a  better  stand  than  Catholicism,  and 
that  its  position  is  more  clear  and  unassailable  than 
the  tortuous  and  vacillating  position  of  Romanism. 
Who  can  assail  it?  Can  it  be  said  that  the  Gospels 
may  perish  or  be  adulterated  ?  What  ?  Is  this  in  any 
way  possible,  with  their  innumerable  editions  and  in- 
contestable copies?  5  If  such  a  thing  is  not  likely  with 
works  of  lesser  importance,  as  for  instance  those  of 
Cicero  or  other  authors  that  are  hardly  known,  how 
should  this  be  possible  with  the  Word  of  God,  which 
is  in  the  hands  of  all  men,  which  has  been  translated 
into  all  languages,  and  of  which  all  people  possess 
codices  ? 

And  if  there  really  should  occur  a  general  mistake 
among  men,  how  can  we  believe  in  a  Divine  mistake? 
Did  not  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  inspiring  those  books, 
impose  upon  himself  at  the  same  time  the  sacred  obli- 
gation of  watching  over  them  with  His  adorable 
Providence?  If  human  means  should  be  insufficient, 
a  supposition  that  is  repugned  on  moral  grounds,  then 
the  omnipotence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  would  come  to 

5  Both  authors,  Patrizi  and  Comely :  Sobre  la  Imposibili- 
dad  de  perderse  6  adulterarse  los  Libros  Santos  (On  the  Im- 
possibility of  either  losing  or  adulterating  the  Sacred  Books). 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     2$ 

their  aid  and  supply  the  deficiency.  If  men  could  not 
and  would  not  watch  over  their  preservation  and 
purity,  then  He  who  never  sleeps  would  watch  over 
them,  He  who  is  all-powerful  would  take  care  of  them ; 
their  falsification  would  be  prevented  by  Him  who, 
being  infinitely  wise,  could  never  mistake  their  true 
meaning. 

In  brief,  God  aids  humanity,  so  that  it  may  never 
lose  His  divine  and  inestimable  treasure. 

Note,  then,  the  most  signal  difference  between  Ro- 
manism and  Protestantism.  The  first  says :  Jesus  Christ 
spoke,  I  do  not  deny  that;  but  for  you  His  word  is 
an  unprofitable  riddle,  unless  I  solve  it  for  you.G  Jesus 
promulgated  dogmas  which  every  faithful  one  shall 
believe,  gave  commands  which  every  man  must  obey, 
established  sacraments  which  every  believer  must  re- 
ceive. All  these  were  laid  down  in  the  Bible,  and 
although  they  were  committed  to  writing  by  order 
and  under  the  inspiration  of  Heaven,  do  not  weary 
yourself  with  reading  them,  for  you  will  find  nothing 
in  them  if  I  do  not  guide  you ;  you  can  know  nothing 
with  certainty,  if  I  do  not  add  my  own  sanction  to 
the  sanction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  I  do  not  add  the 
authority  of  earth  to  the  authority  of  Heaven,  and  if 
the  word  of  the  Pope  is  not  joined  with  the  Word  of 
God. 

For  Romanism,  Heaven  and  earth  are  entirely  sub- 
ject to  the  will  of  the  Pope;  Heaven  has  no  means 
of  communicating  its  commands  except  through  the 
Pope,  and  earth  has  no  way  of  receiving  them  except 

eLco  XIII:  Dc  Studiis  Sacrse  Scripturse  (Encyclical  on  the 
Holy  Scripture). 


24  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

as  interpreted  by  the  Pope.7  And  the  more  false  these 
printed  monstrosities  are,  the  more  firmly  they  must 
be  believed.  In  order  that  the  reader  may  see  for 
himself,  a  bull  by  Pius  IX  is  quoted  in  the  footnotes 
for  the  benefit  of  anyone  who  will  read  it.8 

Protestantism,  on  the  contrary,  says:  Here  you 
have  the  fundamental  code  of  your  beliefs,  precepts 
and  sacraments;  receive  it  with  respect,  for  it  is 
divine ;  read  it  with  veneration,  for  it  came  down  from 
Heaven.  Do  you  wish  to  believe?  Seek,  and  here 
you  will  find  your  faith.  Do  you  wish  to  do  right? 
Search  and  here  you  will  find  your  code  of  ethics. 
Do  you  waver?  Do  you  doubt?  Do  not  seek  human 
aid  but  implore  Heaven,  and  the  same  Holy  Ghost 
who  inspired  and  dictated  to  those  who  wrote  these 
books  will  likewise  inspire  and  dictate  to  your  con- 
science. 

What  a  notable  difference  we  have  here!  Roman- 
ism circumscribes  the  activities  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 

7  Pius  IX :  Enciclica  ad  Vatican  Conciliarios  P.  P.  (Letter 
to  the  P.  P.  Councilors  of  the  Vatican).  Leo  XIII:  De  In- 
terpretation Sacrae  Scripturse. 

8  Pius  IX :  Pope's  Bull :  Obitus  Rom.  Pont,  durante  Concilio. 
Pius  IX  in  Litt.  Ap.  "Cum  Romanis  Pontificibus"  ait  "De 
apostolicse  potestatis  plenitudine  declaramus,  decernimus  atque 
statuimus  quod.  .  .  .  Nos  decedere  contingent,  idem  existat, 
illico  et  inmediate  suspensum  ac  dilatum  intelligatur,  quemad- 
modum  per  Nostras  has  litteras  illud  nunc,  pro  tunc  suspen- 
dere  atque  in  tempus  infra  notandum  differre  intendimus, 
adeo  ut  nulla  prosus  interiecta  mora  cessare  statim  debeat  a 
quibuscumque  conventibus,  congregationibus  et  sessionibus,  et 
sequibusvis  decretis  seu  canonibus  conficiendis  nee  ob  qualem- 
cumque  causam,  etiamsi  gravissima  et  speciali  mentione  digna 
videatur  ulterius  progredi  donee  novus  Pontifex  a  sacro  Car- 
dinalium  collegio  canonice  electus  suprema  sua  auctoritate 
Concilli  ipsius  reassumptionem  et  prosequitionem  duxerit  in- 
timandam.  Idem  Pontifex  mandat  quod  certam  stabilemque 
normam  in  simili  rerum  eventu  perpetuo  servandam.   .   .  ." 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  2$ 

places  itself  like  a  barrier  between  God  and  man; 
Protestantism  removes  all  obstructions  and  establishes 
a  constant  and  most  ample  communication  between 
Heaven  and  earth,  between  God  and  man. 

The  objection  that  Catholicism  opposes  to  Protest- 
antism will  be  met  in  the  next  chapter  and  will  be 
refuted. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ARE    THE    GOSPELS     SUFFICIENT     IN     ORDER     TO     KNOW 
CHRIST    AND     HIS     CHURCH? 

HERE  we  frankly  and  succinctly  formulate  our 
answer.  Since  the  Gospels  comprise  the  writ- 
ings of  the  apostles,  they  should  contain  all  that  is 
necessary  to  believe,  to  do  and  to  receive,  in  order  to 
be  saved;  and  they  should  state  this  so  clearly  and 
self-evidently,  that  with  the  assistance  of  the  Divine 
cooperation,  the  mere  reading  will  be  sufficient  to  com- 
prehend it,  as  both  denominations  suppose  and  admit. 
Let  us  see  if  it  is  so. 

These  books,  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  contain 
the  genuine  Word  of  Christ.  Who  wrote  them? 
Two  of  the  evangelists,  Matthew  and  John,  were  eye- 
witnesses; the  two  others,  Mark  and  Luke,  wrote  in 
conjunction,  the  one  with  Peter,  also  an  eye-witness, 
and  the  other  with  Paul,  who  admitted  that  he  had 
received  the  Gospel  from  Christ  himself,  through  reve- 
lation ; 1  moreover  it  must  always  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  four  wrote  under  the  direct  and  all-sufficient 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  results  there- 
from? We  must  collate  and  synthesize  the  doctrine 
of  our  Saviour;  determine  once  and  for  all  the  true 
teachings  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  refute  the 
apocryphal  writings,  which  were  even  then  appearing 
everywhere,  serving  as  the  basis  for  the  first  heresies. 

1  Galatians  i.  12. 
(26) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    TROTESTANTISM.  2J 

Very  well,  then.  According  to  St.  Thomas  and  the 
entire  school  of  Romanism  2  if  we  wish  to  know  God 
and  deduce  His  attributes,  we  must  begin  with  the 
created  beings  and  ascend  from  them,  conceding  to 
God  whatever  of  beauty,  perfection  and  wisdom  we 
find  in  creation;  wTith  this  proviso,  however,  that  in 
creation  all  perfection  is  found  to  be  mixed  with  im- 
perfection, while  in  God  all  the  perfections  are  found 
entire  and  pure.  In  creation  we  see  the  perfections 
divided  among  the  different  classes  of  created  things ; 
some  wre  behold  shining  in  the  things  not  endowed 
with  sensation,  others  appear  resplendent  in  the  living 
creatures ;  and  the  most  marvelous  ones  scintillate  in 
the  chief  being,  the  crown  of  creation,  the  synthesis 
of  the  universe,  the  compendium  of  the  miracles  of 
God — in  Man:  but  in  God  they  are  all  summed  up  in 
their  highest  potentiality  and  with  fundamental  unity 
and  simplicity,  in  one  single  Being.  In  creation  all 
beauty  and  virtue,  all  perfection  and  holiness,  is  al- 
ways accompanied  by  some  bounds  and  restrictions, 
all  is  finited  and  limited;  but  in  God  all  these  perfec- 
tions are  infinite  and  immense,  without  term  and  with- 
out limits.  Hence,  we  see  God,  as  it  were,  mirrored 
in  creation,  but  we  must  never  forget  that  the  mirror 
is  the  finite  while  the  image  is  infinite,  that  the  mirror 
is  cloudy  and  obscured,  while  the  image  is  clear  and 
magnificent,  that  the  mirror  is  imperfect  and  inade- 
quate, while  the  image  is  absolutely  perfect  in  all  its 
proportions. 

Hence   there   have   been    deep   thinkers    who    have 

2  St.  Thomas  :  De  Deo.  S.  Dionysius  :  De  Divinis  Nomini- 
bus. 


28  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

held  that  this  world,  being  the  work  of  God,  must 
needs  be  the  most  perfect  of  all  the  possible  worlds ; 3 
for  if  it  were  not  it  would  lack  something,  hence  it 
would  be  imperfect,  hence  it  would  presuppose  imper- 
fection in  the  Supreme  Artificer  who  made  it.  St. 
Thomas,  and  with  him  the  entire  Catholic  school,  since 
they  could  not  concede  to  creation  the  attributes  of 
infinity  and  immensity,4  which  would  be  equivalent  to 
proclaiming  the  simultaneous  existence  of  two  infinite 
beings — a  supposition  that  involves  an  obvious  contra- 
diction in  philosophical  reasoning — and  since  they  felt 
obliged,  on  the  other  hand,  to  admit  the  full  perfection 
of  the  works  ad  extra,  as  God  is  absolutely  perfect  ad 
intra,  tried  to  compromise  by  saying:  If  you  ask  us 
whether  this  world  is  the  most  perfect  that  God  could 
create,  we  say  roundly,  No.  God  can  create  an  in- 
finitude of  worlds  more  perfect  than  the  existing  one ; 
an  infinitude  of  beings  more  beautiful,  more  grand, 
more  sublime  than  the  existing  ones ;  but  in  view  of 
the  end  that  God  proposed  to  himself  in  creating  this 
world,  in  view  of  the  gradations  of  glory  that  He  de- 
sired to  see  sparkling  in  creation,  this  world  is  the 
most  perfect  of  all  the  worlds,  this  creation  is  the 
most  adequate  of  all  the  creations.  Not  to  affirm  this, 
continues  St.  Thomas,  would  be  to  suppose  a  lack  of 
proportion  between  the  Artificer  and  His  work,  to 
proclaim  a  deficiency  between  the  Creator  and  His 
creatures,  which  would  be  equivalent  to  denying  the 

"Leibnitz:  In  his  philosophy,  which  is  perhaps  the  most 
profound  work  of  Protestantism,  and  one  of  the  wisest  works 
of  humanity.  See  also  the  works  of  Cardinals  Zigliara,  and 
Gonzalez's  Cosmologia.     De  possibilitate  creationis  eternae. 

*  The  same  testimonies  as  cited  on  No,  3, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  20, 

infinite  wisdom  of  God  and  the  harmony  of  Provi- 
dence.5 

In  expounding  our  thesis,  we  go  back,  as  the  Roman 
Catholic  believer  will  see,  to  the  most  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Roman  philosophy  and  theology,  we 
appeal  to  the  testimony  of  its  deepest  thinkers,  of  its 
most  renowned  and  tried  theologians ;  this  will  show 
that  we  have  undertaken  to  write  a  rational  work 
making  for  harmony,  and  not  a  work  appealing  to 
sectarian  prejudices.  Let  us,  then,  turn  the  light  of 
those  doctrines  upon  the  question  in  hand,  let  us  apply 
the  philosophic  and  theologic  reasoning  of  Romanism 
to  the  work  above  all  others  divine,  the  redaction  of 
the  Gospels. 

Here  we  have  clearly  an  object  proposed  by  God — 
the  collation  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ ; 6  we  have  also 
the  means  chosen  by  the  same  God7 — the  writing  of 
the  Gospels.  Is  there  due  proportion  between  the  end 
and  the  means,  both  chosen  by  the  same  God?  Then 
the  result  is  a  complete  work.  Is  there  no  such  pro- 
portion? Are  there  shortcomings  in  the  Gospels? 
Was  the  object  in  view  not  attained?    Then  they  are 

6  The  same  testimonies  as  cited  on  No.  3. 

6  Consult  the  Gospels,  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
Epistles  of  the  apostles,  where  both  of  these  truths  are  re- 
peatedly stated.  It  is  sufficient  to  read  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospels  in  order  to  see  how  the  evangelists  viewed  Christ's 
doctrine.  St.  John  begins  with  the  Divine  generation  and  ends 
with  the  Resurrection ;  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  begin  with 
the  human  genealogy  and  reach,  the  first,  as  far  as  the  Resur- 
rection, and  the  second,  as  far  as  the  Ascension;  St.  Mark 
begins  with  the  public  appearance  of  Christ  and  goes  as  far 
as  the  Ascension.  See  especially  the  first  verses  of  St.  Luke, 
and  St.  John  xx.  30,  31 ;   also  Acts  i.  2. 

7  Consult  same  testimonies  as  cited  on  No.  6. 


30  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

not  a  divine  work,  then  the  theory  of  inspiration  falls 
to  the  ground.  Then  good-bye  to  the  Gospels! 
This  reasoning  is  not  rational;  it  is  not  philosophic 
nor  theologic  within  the  limits  of  the  scholastic 
philosophy  and  theology.  It  undermines  the  founda- 
tion of  the  entire  Christian  revelation.  It  is  equiva- 
lent to  proclaiming  the  most  destructive  exegetic  doc- 
trine where  we  should  find  the  most  humble  submis- 
sion, the  most  profound  respect,  the  deepest  reverence 
for  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

May  we  not  say,  rather,  that  in  the  Creation  all  is 
harmonious  and  proportionate;  that  the  stone  as  it 
falls,  the  river  as  it  runs,  the  star  as  it  shines,  the 
plant  as  it  grows,  the  beast  as  it  roars,  and  man  while 
he  thinks  are  harmonious  and  proportionate,  are  fin- 
ished and  perfect,  each  in  its  class  and  species,  because 
they  all  respond  adequately  to  the  concept  which  the 
Supreme  Artificer  has  formed  of  them,  making  them 
completely  and  entirely  perfect,  each  in  its  way  ? 8 
May  we  affirm  all  this  of  the  Creation  and  then  when 
we  come  to  the  work  which  is  above  all  others  the 
work  of  God,  to  the  work  of  redemption,  the  redaction 
of  the  Gospels,  which  are  the  indispensable  means  for 
the  continuation  of  this  redemption — when  we  come 
to  the  chief  work,  I  say,  which  is  the  foundation  and 
basis  of  Catholicism  and  of  humanity,  shall  we  then 
declare :  This  is  a  deficient  and  incomplete  work,  this 
is  a  work  which  does  not  correspond  to  the  end  it  pro- 
posed?    For  it  proposed  to  expound  the  doctrine  of 

8  See  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  Fe ;  Creacion, 
Providencia,  Perf eccion  del  Mundo.  Consult  also  Granclaude : 
Filosofia  Escolastica,  Cosmoiogia. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  3* 

Christ,  and  it  does  not  expound  it;  it  proposed  to 
reflect  all  His  dogmas  and  it  does  not  reflect  them ;  it 
proposed  to  set  forth  all  His  precepts  and  does  not 
set  them  forth ;  it  proposed  to  establish  all  His  sacra- 
ments and  they  have  not  been  established ;  it  proposed 
to  describe  the  constructive  elements  of  His  Church 
and  they  have  not  been  described ;  this  work  remained 
incomplete,  remained  deficient,  although  the  apostles 
redacted  it,  with  the  aid  of  the  infinite  wisdom  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  therefore  we  must  complete  it  by  seeking 
the  assistance  of  the  first  Churches,  we  must  add  to 
it  by  seeking  human  testimony,  we  must  go  to  tradi- 
tion for  support.9  Is  this  rational?  Is  this  conceiv- 
able? This  is  the  greatest  of  philosophical  and  theo- 
logical absurdities  imaginable,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  scholasticism,  the  official  doctrines  of  Romanism. 
We  shall  further  demonstrate  this  fallacy  by  taking 
up  another  line  of  reasoning,  and  we  appeal  to  the 
reader's  patience  if  we  propound  and  solve  this  great 
question  somewhat  diffusely.  For  it  is  a  question  that 
is  not  only  of  the  utmost  importance  in  itself  but  is 
also  a  fundamental  one  for  the  discussion  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages.  We  cannot  proceed  with  our  subject 
without  having  answered  it,  for  we  should  meet  with 
doubts  and  stumbling-blocks  at  every  step ;  but  if  it 
has  once  been  cleared  up,  then  we  can  easily  meet  and 
overcome  each  and  every  one  of  the  obstacles  that  we 
shall  find  on  our  way. 

The  apostles  were  the  first  true  followers  of  Christ. 
I  take  it  for  granted  that  there  is  no  Romanist,  how- 

9  Bertier :    Compendium  Theologicum.     Perrone,  Casanova  : 
De  Traditione. 


32  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

ever  irreverent  he  may  be,  who  will  not  concede,  that 
they  believed  in  the  entire  Christian  dogma,  that  they 
practised  all  its  moral  precepts,  that  they  received 
each  and  every  one  of  the  Divine  sacraments,  that 
they  lived  within  the  true  and  legitimate  Church. 
To  doubt  any  one  of  these  affirmations  would  be 
equivalent  to  doubting  the  foundations  of  ecclesi- 
asticism.10 

Very  well,  then.  Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that 
they  were  not  prompted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  let  us 
consider  them  for  a  moment  as  mere  historians,  as 
men  of  integrity  and  sincerity.  How  would  they  have 
to  proceed  in  order  to  record  the  true  doctrines  of 
Christ?  They  would  have  to  question  their  own  in- 
telligence on  the  supposition  that  they  believed  in  each 
and  every  one  of  His  dogmas;  they  would  have  to 
seek  counsel  from  their  own  will,  provided  that  they 
fulfilled  each  and  every  one  of  His  precepts;  they 
would  have  to  reflect  the  experiences  of  daily  life, 
provided  that  they  received  and  administered  each  and 
every  one  of  the  sacraments;  they  would  have  to  de- 
scribe the  events  happening  around  them,  provided 
that  they  were  living  within  the  true  Church.  Then 
if  we  suppose  that  they  were  men  of  integrity  and 
truth  (and  to  doubt  that  would  be  blasphemy  for  a 
Romanist11),  we  must  further  suppose  that  they  were 
capable  and  perfect  men;  as  according  to  all  reports 
they  possessed  the  necessary  knowledge  and  integrity ; 
I  therefore  say  that  they  were  true  and  perfect  Chris- 

10  Pope  S.  Leo:  Petri  et  Pauli  Sermo  (Sermons  on  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul).  The  unanimous  testimony  of  the  Roman 
Church. 

11  Consult  the  same  testimonies  as  cited  on  No.  10. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  33 

tians.12  Among  historians  every  eyewitness  is  admit- 
ted as  a  credible  one,  who  possesses  adequate  knowl- 
edge of  that  which  he  recounts,  undoubted  integrity 
in  recounting  it,  and  absolute  veracity,  To  deny  this 
standard  of  criticism  is  to  destroy  the  records  of  his- 
tory, and  to  grope  about  in  the  dark  regarding  the 
past;  it  is  to  assert  that  historical  accuracy  is  im- 
possible. Therefore,  according  to  our  reasoning,  the 
apostles  must  Jiave  been  perfect  in  their  Gospels,  and 
if  we  add  thereto  the  Divine  aid,  proclaimed  and  be- 
lieved in  by  both  the  religious  denominations,13  then 
we  arrive  at  a  degree  of  certainty  that  is  not  human 
but  divine ;  then  we  have  evidence  not  based  on  scien- 
tific grounds  but  evidence  that  is  absolutely  infallible. 
Let  us  examine  the  Roman  theology  somewhat  more 
closely.  For  God,  time  does  not  exist.14  Seated  on 
the  summit  of  eternity,  He  encompasses  in  one  single 
present  idea  that  which  was,  that  which  is,  that  which 
shall  be,  and  that  which  might  be.  Before  anything 
at  all  existed,  He  saw  within  His  divine  Essence  all 
that  which  had  to  be,  and  how  it  would  come  to  be. 
Hence  the  development  of  His  Church  was  clear  and 
visible  to  Him  since  eternity.  Before  the  heresies  ap- 
peared in  time  and  among  men,  He  beheld  them  rise 
up  out  of  the  depth  of  His  infinite  wisdom.     He  be- 

12  Balmes  :  El  Critcrio.  Granclaude :  Logica ;  Criterios  de 
Verdad.  Mendive :  Logica;  Criterios  de  Verdad  (Criteria 
of  Truth). 

18  Concilium  Tridentinum  et  Vaticanum :  De  Canone  Sacrrc 
Scripture.  The  Biblical  Canon  of  any  Protestant  ritual,  and 
the  Biblical  Canon  of  the  Councils  of  Trent  and  the  Vatican. 

uHurter:  Theologia  Dogmatica  de  Scientia  Dei.  P.  Fer- 
nandez: Same  title.  Perrone,  Casanova,  Genicot,  Gotti: 
Same  title. 


34  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

held  scandals  and  schisms  disturbing  and  defiling  His 
Church  before  they  actually  arose.  He  beheld  vice 
and  sin  passing  triumphant  from  century  to  century, 
from  society  to  society,  from  people  to  people;  He 
saw  that  no  class  of  society  remained  exempt;  He 
beheld  their  impure  stigma  on  the  forehead  of  the 
people  as  well  as  on  the  crowned  head,  on  the  car- 
dinal's hat  as  well  as  on  the  Pontiff's  tiara;  and  He 
beheld  all  these  things  at  the  moment  when  He  was 
inspiring  and  dictating  to  His  apostles.  Is  it  within 
the  bound  of  reason  to  believe  that,  having  the  power 
to  establish  the  word  of  His  adorable  Son  in  an  in- 
controvertible and  indubitable  way,  He  should  instead 
entrust  it  to  the  volubility  and  wavering  of  this  same 
humanity,  which  He  beheld  so  much  inclined  to  falsify 
and  adulterate  it,  in  order  to  cloak  therewith  their 
vices  and  crimes  ?  No,  a  thousand  times  no ;  God  had 
to  choose  the  best  and  most  adequate  way,  that  which 
was  the  least  open  to  mystifications  and  abuse,  in 
order  that  the  Gospels  might  condemn  for  all  time  the 
sins  of  the  Pontiff  as  well  as  the  sins  of  the  faithful, 
the  sins  of  the  king  as  well  as  the  sins  of  the  people. 
Our  affirmation  appears  still  more  categorical  as  we 
turn  to  the  last  one  of  the  dogmas  proclaimed  by 
Romanism,  the  infallibility  of  the  Pontiff.  According 
to  the  Catholic  theology,15  inspiration  as  the  general 
source  of  authority  ceased  with  the  apostles.  The 
body  of  the  doctrine  was  then  entirely  complete,  and 
no  one  is  empowered  to  add  to  it  or  take  away  from 

15  Melchor  Cano :  De  Locis  Theologicis.  Jaugey :  His  work 
above  mentioned;  Revelacion,  Inspiracion,  Infalibilidad.  Ber- 
tier,   Perrone,   Cardinal  Vives :    De  Infallibilitate;     Ecclesise. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  35 

it.16  Consequent  upon  this  affirmation  that  theology 
further  holds  that  if  the  Holy  Ghost  continues  to  com- 
municate with  His  creatures  by  means  of  voices,  vi- 
sions and  other  mystical  manifestations  that  abound  in 
the  lives  of  the  saints,  this  does  not  affect  humanity 
at  large,  but  concerns  only  those  individuals  who  re- 
ceive such  communication.17  It  holds  furthermore,  in 
regard  to  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  Pontiff,  that 
this  is  neither  revelation  nor  inspiration,  but  means 
merely  preservation  from  error ; 18  and  in  defining  its 
powers  it  says:  he  can  originate  nothing  and  add 
nothing;  the  only  thing  he  can  do  is  to  indicate  to  us 
the  true  meaning  of  that  which  has  already  been  re- 
vealed. We,  therefore,  stand  justified  in  our  point  of 
view,  for  both  Romanism  and  Protestantism  affirm 
alike  that  the  entire  Christian  doctrine  is  contained  in 
the  Gospels  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles ;  we  are 
certain,  therefore,  that  neither  in  the  apostolic  tradition 
nor  in  the  words  of  the  first  disciples  of  the  apostles 
do  we  find  anything,  nor  can  we  find  anything,  that  we 
may  not  find  in  the  Gospels  or  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles  themselves. 

Let  us  sum  up  in  a  few  words  the  doctrine  as  ex- 
plained in  this  somewhat  lengthy  chapter.  Protestant- 
ism holds  that  the  Bible,  being  the  Word  of  God,  is 
complete;  being  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  in- 
fallible ;  reflecting  the  teachings  of  Christ,  it  contains 
the  articles  of  our  faith,  the  exemplar  of  our  conduct, 

18  Same  testimonies  as  cited  on  No.  11. 

17  Scaramelli :  Obras  Misticas  (Spanish  translation).  Jau- 
gey :    His  work  above  mentioned ;    Revelacicn. 

18  Schouppe :  De  Infallibilitate.  Hurter  and  Hettinger : 
Same  title. 


36  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  summary  of  our  sacraments.  Since  Christ  is  our 
one  and  only  Master,  Him  only  shall  we  hear  and 
obey.19  Romanism  holds  that  although  the  Bible  is 
the  Word  of  God,  still  it  is  not  complete,  and  does  not 
contain  the  entire  Christian  doctrine.20  Although  it 
is  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  therefore  infallible, 
yet  its  meaning  is  so  hidden  and  difficult  to  under- 
stand, that  it  requires  further  authentic  and  infallible 
interpretation,  that  of  the  Pope.21  While  Christ  is  our 
only  Master,  yet  we  need  a  man  to  guide  us  to  him, 
we  need  the  Pope  to  go  with  us. 

Let  the  reader  examine  and  decide  impartially  which 
of  these  two  theories  is  the  more  rational,  the  more 
theological,  the  more  human  and  the  more  divine. 

10  Consult  any  Protestant  ritual  on  Articles  of  Faith. 

20  Tridentinum  et  Vaticanum  de  Traditione  et  Fide  (Coun- 
cils of  Trent  and  the  Vatican).  Perrone,  Casanova:  Same 
title. 

21  Leo  XIII:  De  Studiis  Biblicis  (Encyclical  on  Biblical 
Studies).     Jaugey:    His  work  above  mentioned  on  Exegesis. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   SUBJECT   OF   THE   PREVIOUS    CHAPTER    CONTINUED. 

WE  have  asserted  in  the  preceding  chapter,  not 
only  that  the  Christian  doctrine  is  contained 
in  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles,  but 
also  that  the  language  of  these  works  is  so  clear 
that  it  may  be  understood  by  any  person  who  is 
in  possession  of  all  his  faculties.  As  the  Romanist 
may  see,  we  have  thereby  answered  one  of  his  gravest 
charges  against  Protestantism.  The  other  objections 
consequent  upon  the  acceptance  of  tradition  and  in- 
volving the  view  that  the  Gospels  do  not  contain  the 
entire  doctrine,  will  be  the  subject  of  the  following 
chapter.  We  say  this  here,  in  order  that  he  may  con- 
vince himself  that  we  are  aware  of  the  number  and 
the  force  of  his  objections. 

One  of  the  most  conspicuous  facts  confirmed  both 
by  history  and  tradition,  is  the  charming  simplicity 
of  the  language  used  by  Christ.1  It  would  not  have 
been  judicious  in  Him  to  do  otherwise.  The  first  and 
most  rudimentary  rule  for  every  orator  is  to  accom- 
modate himself  to  the  social  status  of  the  people  he  is 
addressing,  so  that  he  may  be  accessible  to  the  ma- 
jority of  them.     Not  to  do  so  would  be  to  speak  in 

1  Chrysostomus  :  De  Humilitatc  et  Simplicitate  Christi  (On 
the  humility  and  simplicity  of  Christ).  The  Venerable  Bede 
on  the  same  subject.  The  entire  tradition  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Church,  corroborates  this  statement. 

(37) 


38  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

vain,  to  move  the  air  and  not  the  souls,  as  St.  Paul 
graphically  says.  Very  well,  then ;  who  were  the  peo- 
ple that  for  the  most  part  composed  the  audience  of 
our  adorable  Saviour?  Simple  fishermen  and  humble 
countrymen  of  Galilee,  the  illiterate  and  poor  people 
of  Palestine.2  Let  us  glance  briefly  at  the  degree  of 
culture  of  this  people,  that  we  may  thereby  gain  some 
insight  into  this  important  question. 

As  the  immortal  Balmes  3  says,  one  of  the  rules  most 
necessary  to  observe  for  the  good  historian,  but  which, 
unfortunately,  is  too  often  forgotten,  is  that  he  should 
set  aside  for  the  moment  his  own  state  of  civilization 
and  his  own  theories,  when  he  is  studying  the  ancient 
civilizations.  Living  as  we  do  in  a  social  environment 
entirely  different  from  that  of  Palestine,  it  is  very  dif- 
ficult for  us  to  form  an  adequate  picture  of  that  people. 
We  may,  however,  get  some  idea,  in  following  the 
principle  of  exclusion,  and  guided  by  the  few  histori- 
cal records  which  we  possess  of  them,  and  although 
the  picture  may  not  be  a  complete  one,  it  will  suffice 
to  demonstrate  our  thesis. 

The  people  of  Palestine,  at  the  epoch  when  Christ 
appeared  among  them,  selecting  them  as  the  sole  re- 
cipients of  His  religion,  were  living  isolated  in  the 
midst  of  the  stream  of  Hellenism  and  Romanism 
which  at  that  time  was  spreading  all  over  the  vast 
Roman  empire.4  The  proud  and  hypocritical  Phari- 
sees considered  the  study  of  Greek  and  Latin  as  de- 

8 The  Gospels  and  Apostolic  Writings:  In  almost  every 
chapter,  for  instance,  Matt.  xi.  25. 

8  El  Criterio:  Modo  de  estudiar  y  escribir  la  historia  (Man- 
ner of  studying  and  writing  history). 

i  Talmud  of  Jerusalem :   Megillath  Taanith. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  39 

grading  as  the  eating  of  unclean  animals.5  One  of 
these  pompous  doctors,  on  being  asked  the  age  on 
which  a  boy  might  begin  to  acquire  the  profane 
culture,  replied:  "At  the  time  when  there  shall  be 
neither  day  nor  night,  for  Moses  commanded  that 
both  the  day  and  the  night  shall  be  given  to  the 
study  of  the  Law."  Schools  were  few  in  the  land.6 
Their  teachers  were  the  same  scribes  who  devoted 
themselves  to  the  interpretation  and  explanation  of 
the  Holy  Books.  The  course  of  study  was  confined 
to  learning  to  read  those  Holy  Books  in  a  mechanical 
routine  fashion.  Nothing  that  could  be  called  gen- 
eral culture  was  taught  in  the  schools  or  could  be 
acquired  in  social  intercourse.  Any  branch  of  learn- 
ing that  was  not  directly  or  indirectly  derived  from 
the  Holy  Books  was  denounced  as  profane  and  dan- 
gerous, and  despised  and  abhorred  as  impious  and 
heretical. 

If  such  was  the  culture  of  the  upper  classes,  we 
may  imagine  the  state  of  the  lower  classes,  of  the 
working  people.  Gaume  says  correctly,7  that  the  low- 
est classes  of  our  modern  society  would  appear  as 
great  scholars  and  men  of  encyclopedic  wisdom  in 
comparison  with  the  ignorant  and  humble  masses  of 
the  Palestine  people  who  heard  and  followed  Christ.8 
Xo  one  who  has  looked  into  profane  history  and 
knows  the  historical  records  to  which  the  historians 

5  Talmud  of  Jerusalem  :    Pe'ah. 

"Renan:   The  Life  of  Christ,  chap,  iii  (Spanish  translation). 

7  Gaume  :  Folleto,  Credo  (Spanish  translation).  Josephus: 
Using  his  own  words :  "I  am  an  unusual,  cultured  man." 
Philo,  another  Jewish  rabbi  of  that  period,  was  educated  out- 
side of  Palestine. 

8Fleury;    Costumbres  de  la  Palestina  (Palestine  Customs). 


40  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

refer  in  regard  to  this  people  can  deny  that  at  the 
time  of  Jesus  Christ  the  intellectual  level  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Palestine  was  much  below  the  intellectual  level 
of  the  people  of  our  time,  of  our  working  classes. 

This  people,  then,  most  humble  in  its  origin,  illiter- 
ate and  simple  because  of  its  lack  of  instruction,  is 
the  congregation  that  Christ  chiefly  addresses ;  and 
the  people  listen  to  Him  and  understand  Him;  thou- 
sands from  all  over  the  country  follow  Him  with 
reverence  and  enthusiasm.  And  why  should  this  not 
be  so,  since  there  is  nothing  so  clear  as  the  sublime 
preaching  of  Christ  ?  9  In  His  exposition  He  adopted 
the  form  most  easily  understood  by  the  masses. 
There  are  no  profound  discussions,  no  forced  inter- 
pretations, nothing  that  is  not  lucid  as  the  light,  clear 
as  day,  true  as  the  people  surrounding  Him  were 
true.10  He  uses  the  symbol,  the  parable,  the  fable, 
metaphor  and  allegory;  but  these  oratorical  artifices 
serve  only  to  make  His  thought  more  vivid,  His  teach- 
ings more  clear.  He  not  only  seeks  to  impress  the  in- 
telligence of  His  audience  but  to  appeal  to  their  feel- 
ings, to  move  their  imagination;  because  this  simple 
people  (and  the  Saviour  addressed  by  preference  the 
simple  people)  cannot  grasp  pure  ideas  and  abstract 
reflections  if  they  are  not  garnished  and  simplified  by 
homely  similes  and  vivid  imagery.  To  deny  this  fact 
is  to  deny  the  historical  personality  of  Christ,  to  deny 
His  divine  and  august  mission. 

To  believe  that  His  Gospel  was  written  only  for  the 

9  See  any  of  the  sermons  of  Christ;  in  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew,  for  instance,  v.  1-12;    also  xiii. 

10  See  the  parables  of  Christ  in  all  the  Gospels,  especially 
Matt,  xiii,  and  Luke  viii. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  4 1 

leading  classes  to  read ;  to  suppose  that  only  the  upper 
and  illustrious  classes  could  grasp  its  meaning,  to 
affirm  that  only  those  who  have  previously  mastered 
auxiliary  sciences  can  profit  by  its  reading  and  inter- 
pretation, is  to  contradict  the  Gospel  itself,  to  asperse 
and  disfigure  its  divine  simplicity,  its  immaculate 
beauty,  its  incomparable  tenderness.11  Poor  and  sim- 
ple are  those  who  first  approach  Jesus,  women  and 
children  are  the  first  who  hear  His  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion; and  Jesus  Christ  never  forgets  the  condition  of 
His  hearers,  in  His  sweet  and  tender  exposition,  His 
candid  speech  and  His  enchanting  parables. 

Let  us,  therefore,  go  to  the  Gospels,  with  the  pro- 
found conviction,  that  plain,  common  sense  is  sufficient 
to  understand  them;  away  with  all  attempts  at  pro- 
found criticism,  all  search  for  recondite  meanings  and 
deep  mysteries,  all  endeavors  to  get  hold  of  them  with 
the  aid  of  absurd  suppositions  and  strained  and  far- 
fetched interpretations.  That  which  we  shall  believe 
and  do  and  receive  we  find  here  stated  with  self- 
evident  clarity  without  efifort  or  straining  of  any  kind ; 
and  we  find  it  expounded  and  affirmed  as  Christ  ex- 
pounded and  affirmed  His  doctrine:  with  frankness, 
for  the  people  who  listened  to  Him  were  frank ;  with 
simplicity  for  the  people  who  heard  Him  were  simple ; 
with  transparent  clearness,  for  only  thus  could  the 
people  who  surrounded  Him  understand  Him.12  Un- 
less the  Roman  Church  thinks  that  our  people  are  in- 
ferior in  knowledge  to  the  absolutely  ignorant  people 

11  See  the  Gospels,  especially  Matt.  v.  1-12. 
"  Fleury:    Costumbres  de  la   Palestina.      Renan :    Life  of 
Christ;    chaps,  ii,  iii,  iv. 


42  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

of  Palestine,  that  our  society  is  inferior  in  culture  to 
the  illiterate  society  of  Judea,  she  may  never  affirm 
that  we  require  a  tutor  or  an  interpreter  in  order  to 
hear  and  comprehend  that  which  was  heard  and 
easily  comprehended  by  the  poor  fishermen  of  Galilee 
and  the  simple  women  of  Nazareth. 

Since  this  is  a  question  of  life  or  death  for  the 
Romanist;  since  the  denial  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  an  authoritative  interpretation  means  the  downfall 
of  the  great  majority  of  the  air  castles  reared  within 
the  shadow  of  this  fantastic  power;  since  the  ad- 
mission of  a  more  liberal  interpretation  might  lead 
liberal  reasoning  to  cast  down  the  many  bugbears 
which  have  been  gathered  around  the  central  Roman 
power,  encouraged  by  authority  and  false  tradition, — 
since  Romanism  foresees  this  inevitable  catastrophe, 
it  clings  more  and  more  closely  to  its  favorite  theory. 
Let  us  hear  its  reasoning.13 

If  we  did  not  admit  the  necessity  of  a  single  cen- 
tral authority,  whose  interpretation  shall  be  equally 
obligatory  upon  all,  the  Sacred  Books  would  be  a  nest 
of  discord  instead  of  being  a  center  of  unity ;  a  ground 
for  dissensions  instead  of  a  basis  of  unity.14  Human 
standards  are  so  varied  and  numerous,  the  likes  and 
dislikes  of  men  are  so  diverse  and  heterogenous  that 
it  would  be  morally  impossible  to  arrive  at  a  common 
understanding,  and  the  precepts,  the  dogmas,  the  sac- 
raments,   all    the    constitutive    elements    of   the    true 

13  Leo  XIII :  Studies  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  Conciliums 
of  Trent  and  of  the  Vatican.    De  Sacra  Scriptura. 

14  Jaugey :  His  only  work  mentioned  in  this  book :  Inter- 
pretation Biblica;    Autoridad  de  la  Iglesia, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  43 

Church,  would  be  multiplied  or  diminished  accord- 
ing to  the  individual  likings.  Such  is  in  brief  the 
strongest  argument  of  the  Roman  Church. 

To  this  we  may  at  once  reply:  Do  you  believe  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  redaction 
of  the  Holy  Books?  Do  you  believe  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  constantly  and  directly  active  in  elevating 
those  who  sincerely  implore  Him,  in  the  supernatural 
order  of  faith? 

We  believe,  they  say  to  us,  in  these  things.  And 
we  believe  more;  we  believe  that  without  Divine  aid 
human  reason  is  incapable  of  entering  into  the  su- 
pernal world  of  faith.  We  affirm  that  neither  the 
clearest  and  keenest  intelligence  nor  the  most  pro- 
found exegetical  studies,  neither  the  most  accurate 
knowledge  of  history  nor  the  infallible  authority  of 
the  Church  itself  can  introduce  the  simple  mortal 
man  into  the  supernal  world  of  faith  and  redemption ; 
that  this  15  is  the  free  gift  of  Heaven,  that  this  is  a 
favor  exclusively  bestowed  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
we  affirm  at  the  same  time  that  He  denies  it  to  no 
one,  that  He  concedes  it  to  all  who  sincerely  ask  for 
it,  and  who  do  not  knowingly  place  any  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  the  divine  impetus.10 

According  to  your  own  confession,  then,  the  faith- 
ful who  sincerely  seek  for  the  truth  in  the  Sacred 
Books  can  never  find  therein  any  cause  for  perturba- 
tion and  error.  Whence  should  come  error  and  per- 
turbation?   Out  of  the  Bible?    That  is  impossible,  for 

ls  Concilium  of  the  Vatican;   De  Ratione  et  Fide. 

15  The  attention  of  the  reader  is  called  to :  James  i.  5. 
Matt.  vii.  7;  xxi.  22.  Mark  xi.  24.  Luke  xi.  9.  John  xiv.  13; 
xv.  7;   xvi.  23. 


44  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

according  to  your  own  confession  it  is  divine.  From 
the  impetus  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  No,  for  you  believe 
that  he  is  infallible.  From  the  weakness  of  the  faith- 
ful? No,  for  you  affirm  that  the  Holy  Ghost  himself 
aids  them. 

Hence,  according  to  your  own  theologic  doctrine, 
the  faithful  can  go  direct  to  the  fountains  of  revela- 
tion, if  only  he  goes  sincerely,  invoking  the  divine 
aid.  And  if,  notwithstanding  these  conditions,  di- 
versity of  opinion  should  arise  among  the  faithful, 
bless  it,  for  this  diversity  would  be  due  to  the  very 
f ruitfulness  of  the  Word  of  God ;  it  would  be  a  sign 
of  life  and  not  of  death,  a  signal  of  progress  and 
not  of  regression.17  The  countless  number  of  nebu- 
lae and  constellations,  of  stars  and  planets,  have  been 
produced  out  of  one  single  cosmic  matter  and  this  di- 
versity is  the  source  of  its  sublime  and  incomparable 
beauty.18  One  vegetative  life  has  produced  the  har- 
monious gradation  of  plants  and  flowers,  and  its  di- 
versity is  brilliant  with  the  wonders  of  nature.19  One 
single,  living  breath  animates  the  fish  in  the  water, 
propels  the  bird  through  the  air,  gives  breath  to  the 
beast  in  the  field  and  in  this  very  diversity  resides 
the  majestic  and  overpowering  beauty  of  creation.20 
The  power  of  judgment  is  the  specific  attribute  of 
man,  and  what  a  diversity  of  races  and  people,  of 

"Renan:  El  Porvenir  de  la  Ciencia  (Spanish  translation) 
(The  Future  of  Science),  first  chapters. 

18Sechi:  De  los  Astros  (Spanish  translation).  Palmiere: 
Cosmologia. 

19Zigliara:  De  Vita  Vegetativa.  Mendive:  De  la  Vida 
Vegetal. 

20  Cardinals  Gonzalez  and  Zigliara ;  Filosofia :  Del  Principio 
Racional. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  45 

philosophic  systems  and  literary  theories,  of  political 
institutions  and  other  human  creations,  and  above  all 
these  things  how  beautiful  appears  humanity  in  its 
ceaseless,  majestic  march  toward  progress,  toward 
its  entire  and  complete  perfection ! 21  Diversity  within 
unity  is  the  sign  of  harmony,  of  progress,  of  life. 
Centralism  within  unity  is  the  sign  of  usurpation,  of 
decadence,  of  death. 

Perhaps  the  Romanist  will  reply  here:  But  your 
theory  applies  only  to  the  good  among  the  faithful, 
only  to  those  who  sincerely  seek  for  the  truth,  implor- 
ing Heaven  to  aid  them,  and  applies  by  no  means  to 
all.  We  grant  that;  we  speak  only  of  those  among 
the  faithful  who  seek  in  the  Holy  Books  before  all 
and  above  all  for  their  creed  and  their  rule  of  con- 
duct, not  of  those  who  interpret  the  Scriptures  so 
as  to  palliate  their  vices  and  cloak  their  sins.  Does 
Romanism  believe  Protestantism  to  be  so  ignorant  and 
unsophisticated  as  to  think  that  the  Sacred  Books, 
aside  from  being  the  guide  to  the  creed  and  the  rules 
of  conduct  of  the  sincere  believer,  are  of  such  nature 
that  the  wicked  and  perverse  cannot  make  wrom;- 
use  of  them?  Protestantism  is  aware  and  Romanism 
knows  that  the  insolent  can  falsify  and  adulterate  the 
Holy  Books  according  to  his  caprice,  with  or  without 
a  free  examination,  with  or  without  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  Church ;  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this 
that  the  truly  faithful  may  not  reap  a  rich  harvest 
in  reading  them. 

Here  we  have  one  of  the  most  crafty  sophisms  of 

"Renan:     El    Porvenir    de    la    Ciencia    (The    Future    of 

Science)  ;    chaps,  ii,  iii,  iv,  v. 


46  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Romanism.  Seeing  that  among  those  which  it  arro- 
gantly calls  sects  there  are  some  who  make  a  wrong 
use  of  the  Scriptures,  it  exclaims  with  indignation : 22 
Here  you  have  the  fruits  of  free  examination;  here 
you  have  the  results  of  not  believing  in  one  central 
authority  that  shall  determine  the  interpretation.  The 
reader  will  pardon  me  if  scholastic  terms  are  made  use 
of  in  replying,  for  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  treat- 
ing of  Romanistic  matters  this  language  is  very  often 
precise  and  to  the  point.23  According  to  your  ethics, 
when  a  thing  is  good  in  itself  and  evil  by  accident, 
it  is  permitted  and  commendable  if  the  good  is  in- 
tended, and  it  must  never  be  condemned  and  prohibited 
in  general.24  Should  anyone  suggest  that  many  go  to 
confession  and  partake  of  the  communion  sacrile- 
giously and  that  therefore  these  sacraments  should 
be  suppressed,  you  reply,  You  talk  very  extravagantly. 
We  do  not  deny  that  there  are  many,  very  many  sacri- 
leges, but  this  is  by  accidence ;  the  sacraments  in  them- 
selves are  good  and  not  to  be  forbidden,  for  good  men 
derive  benefit  from  them.  Here,  then,  you  have  the  an- 
swer, my  Roman  theologic  gentlemen:  if  some  men 
make  wrong  use  of  the  Scriptures,  this  is  by  acci- 
dence, and  there  are,  on  the  other  hand,  many,  very 
many  men  who  find  in  them  the  sure  rules  of  their 
conduct.  Do  you  attempt  to  deny  it  ?  Then  you  deny 
history.  And  if  you  affirm  that  the  defects  by  acci- 
dence are  sufficient  ground  for  refusing  the  interpre- 

22  Jaugey :    His  work  mentioned.     Protestantismo,  Biblia. 

"Elber:  Theologia  Moralis;  De  Actibus  Humanis  (Human 
Acts).    Sporer  and  Lenkhul :   The  same  title. 

24  S.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio:  De  Sacramentis.  Cardinal 
Vives:   Same  title. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  4j 

tation  of  the  Scriptures,  then  you  suppress  your  chief 
sacraments.  What  do  you  reply  to  the  Protestant 
when  he  says :  The  papal  authority  is  bad  because 
it  gives  rise  to  schisms  and  heresies?  You  hasten  to 
answer  that  this  is  by  accidence,  and  it  is  thereby 
corroborated  by  the  true  faithful.  And  Protestantism 
answers  you  back  with  the  same  argument,  based  on 
the  same  terms.  The  free  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
gives  rise  to  evils  by  accidence ; 25  and  is  thereby 
fortified  and  corroborated  for  the  true  believers. 
If  the  argument  is  sound  in  the  one  case,  it  is  also 
sound  in  the  other  case,  for  true  philosophy  is  neither 
Romanist  nor  Protestant  —  the  truth  is  the  same 
for  all. 

Let  us  now  demonstrate  the  same  affirmation  by 
following  a  line  of  reasoning  that  is  perhaps  more 
exegetical  and  philosophical.  In  exegesis,  when  ques- 
tions referring  to  divine  inspiration  are  under  discus- 
sion, men  not  well  versed  in  such  matters  are  con- 
fronted with  serious  difficulties.26  If  it  is  the  Holy 
Ghost  who  has  inspired  the  Sacred  Books,  why  have 
they  been  written  in  diverse  idioms  and  diverse  styles? 
Why  were  some  written  in  Hebrew,  some  in  Greek, 
some  in  Syrio-Chaldseic,  and  some  in  Latin?  Why  is 
the  Hebrew  of  Moses  not  like  the  Hebrew  of  Job  ?  Or 
that  of  the  Greater  Prophets  not  like  that  of  the  Minor 

25  Authors  cited  on  the  citations  Nos.  23  and  24.  For  the 
scholastic  and  technical  terms,  consult  Perujo:  Dictionarium 
Scholasticum ;    s.  v.  Per  se,  and  Per  accidens. 

89  For  all  the  exegetical  questions,  consult  Comely,  Patrizi 
and  Vigouroux,  who  are  the  most  authoritative.  For  the 
question  under  discussion,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  read  Manu- 
ale  Biblicum  et  Hcrmeneuthicum ;  Inspiration  and  Its  Ex- 
tent. 
5 


48  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Prophets  ?  Why  is  the  Greek  of  St.  Paul 27  not  like 
the  Greek  of  St.  Luke,  or  the  Greek  of  St.  Mark  like 
the  Greek  of  St.  John?  Why,  if  there  is  only  one 
principal  author,  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  every  one  of  the 
special  authors  his  own  style,  his  favorite  phrases,  his 
own  vocabulary? 

I  know  your  answer,  and  I  accept  it  as  a  good  one ; 
for  Protestantism  must  also  accept  it  as  a  good  one, 
on  the  supposition  that  it  is  rational,  philosophical 
and  the  only  one  that  can  maintain  currency.28  These 
differences  of  idiom  and  style  are  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  Holy  Ghost,  while  in  the  act  of  inspiring  the  writ- 
ers, accommodated  himself  to  the  laws  of  the  language 
obtaining  at  a  given  epoch ;  these  divergencies  arose 
because  the  divine  act  combined  with  the  natural  mode 
of  expression  peculiar  to  each  author  before  the  mo- 
ment of  inspiration  and  in  the  course  of  inspiration. 
The  divine  act  prompted  the  holy  man  to  set  down 
the  truth  and  preserved  him  from  falling  into  error; 
but  it  left  him  free  to  express  his  thoughts  and  choose 
his  words  as  any  profane  author  might  do.  A  fine 
confession !  An  admirable  mode  of  reasoning !  If 
the  Holy  Ghost  accommodated  himself  to  the  gen- 
eral laws  of  the  language  of  each  given  epoch,  if  the 
holy  men  in  writing  the  Sacred  Books  proceeded  as 
any  other  author  would,  except  that  they  were 
prompted  to  set  down  the  truth  and  were  preserved 
from  error,  then  the  rule  of  grammar,  some  idea  of 
philosophy  and  the  rudiments  of  history,  or  in  brief, 

27,  ^  The  authors  cited  and  also,  Moigno :  Esplendores  de 
la  Fe;  Milagro  de  Josue.  Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico 
de  la  Fe  (Spanish  translation)  ;    Inspiracion. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  49 

the  general  laws  of  criticism,  are  sufficient  to  inter- 
pret those  books.  That  which  is  adequate  and  suffi- 
cient to  interpret  any  profane  author  is  also  adequate 
and  sufficient  to  interpret  the  Bible,  since  the  Revealed 
Writings  do  not  differ  in  their  morphological  struc- 
ture from  profane  works.  You  yourself  therefore 
admit  that  the  Protestants  are  justified  in  maintaining 
that  anyone  can  interpret  the  Holy  Books. 

Finally,  Romanism  is  at  great  pains  to  demonstrate 
that  without  a  central  authority  the  canon  cannot  re- 
main fixed  and  that  it  is  not  possible  to  arrive  at  a 
common  understanding  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible, 
and  both  of  these  things  are  not  only  desirable  but 
indispensable  for  the  true  Church.23  Very  well;  then 
the  first  churches  and  the  first  believers,  who  did  not 
have  this  canon  and  this  central  interpretative  au- 
thority, were  not  of  the  true  Church? 

30  Then  you  were  not  the  true  Church  until  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  determined  the  present 
canon?  Therefore  the  Roman  Church  was  lacking  in 
something  during  the  sixteen  centuries  which  preceded 
the  Council  of  Trent ;  she  lacked  this  precious  and  in- 
dispensable thing  which  you  now  proclaim  to  be  so 
necessary.  It  seems  incredible  that  Romanism  should 
not  perceive  how  it  is  standing  in  its  own  light  by  ex- 
aggerating and  insisting  on  such  determinate  affirma- 
tions.   While  imagining  that  it  is  cutting  the  supports 

TJ  Leo  XIII:  Encyclical  on  Bible  Study.  Jaugey :  On  his 
work  above  mentioned;  Interpretacion  de  la  Biblia  (Bible 
Interpretation).  Bertier,  Perrone,  Casanova:  De  Auctoritate 
Ecclesise. 

w  Vigouroux ;  Comely  :  Their  mentioned  works  :  History 
of  the  Biblical  Canon.  Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico  de 
la  Fe;    Same  subject. 


50  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

away  from  under  other  roofs,  its  own  roof  is  insecure 
and  leaky.  Further  on  we  shall  see  that  the  so  much 
bepraised  authority  was  not  able  then,  nor  is  it  able 
now  to  conserve  the  unity  of  doctrine  and  interpreta- 
tion within  its  own  house. 

It  follows  from  all  these  arguments  that  the  Catho- 
lic philosophy  and  theology,  dogma  and  exegesis,  tak- 
ing them  in  conjunction  and  interpreting  them  ra- 
tionally, proclaim  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  regards 
the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  and  refuse  the  monopo- 
lizing central  authority  which  Romanism  arrogates  to 
itself  on  this  point. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

IN    THIS     CHAPTER    WE    CORROBORATE    THE    SAME    DOC- 
TRINES   OUTLINED    IN    THE    PRECEDING    ONES,    BY 
THE  CONDUCT  AND  WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOS- 
TLES, AND  ALSO  ANSWER  THE  MAIN  OB- 
JECTION OF  THE  ROMANS. 

WHEN  the  short,  but  admirable,  life  of  Christ 
is  looked  into;  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
apostles  1  came  before  the  people  not  with  a  doctrine 
of  their  own,  but  with  one  emanating  from  Christ 
direct ;  and  that  in  order  to  silence  the  existing  doc- 
trines and  prevent  future  ones  from  appearing,2  the 
apostles  endeavored  to  draw  up  and  to  explain  the 
genuine  doctrines  of  Christ ; 3  when  all  these  consid- 
erations based  upon  irrefutable  historical  testimony, 
are  connected  together;  though  we  should  even  mo- 
mentarily abstract  the  divine  assistance,  we  arrive  at 
the  certain  conclusion  that  nothing  that  was  funda- 
mental and  necessary  to  the  true  Church  of  Christ, 
could  have  been  left  to  tradition. 

Many  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  were 
drawn  up  at  a  time  when  heresy  and  schisms  were 

1  St.  Paul :  In  nearly  all  his  epistles.  Read  especially  Gal. 
i.  12. 

2  St.  Paul:  I  Cor.  iv.  1-5;  xi.  18-26.  II  Cor.  xi.  17.  Mark 
xiii.  22. 

8  Eusebius :  Ecclesiastical  History,  First  Heresies,  and  the 
same  authorities  mentioned  in  citation  No.  2;  also  consult  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  chap.  xv. 

(51) 


52  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

already  tearing  asunder  the  dawning  Christian 
Church.4  There  existed  already  believers  who  denied 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  believers  who  re- 
jected His  human  nature.  There  were  already  diver- 
gences of  opinion  upon  the  authority  of  His  disciples, 
and  upon  the  reception  of  His  highest  sacraments. 
The  same  Gospel  speaks  to  us  of  the  false  evangel- 
ists and  the  false  Christs,5  who  would  attempt  to  de- 
ceive the  people  by  erroneous  doctrines  and  spurious 
sacraments.  St.  Paul  unhesitatingly  states  that  from 
among  his  listeners  there  would  arise  false  prophets, 
who  would  endeavor  to  cheat  the  masses,  by  pervert- 
ing the  true  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  tarnishing  the 
purity  of  His  Church.  Since  the  apostles  knew  and 
foresaw  these  things,  since  they  witnessed  on  every 
side  the  sprouting  of  error6  and  of  mystification; 
since,  for  the  purpose  of  unmasking  this  treacherous 
class  and  strengthening  the  faithful  in  their  creeds 
they  drew  up  their  writings  and  their  history  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  is  it  reasonable  or  admissible  so  far  as 
the  human  judgment  is  concerned,  that  they  would 
have  omitted  anything  fundamental,  anything  neces- 
sary or  anything  of  a  constructive  nature?  Is  it  con- 
ceivable that  they  should  have  left  dogma,  morals, 
sacraments,  their  very  Church  itself,  in  uncertainty? 
Was  not  this  more  like  an  occasional  cause  of  the 
coining  heresies  and  future  errors?     To  write  a  part 

4  St.  Paul:    I  Cor.  i.  n,  and  iii.  4;    also  xi.  13.    Gal.  i.  7. 

5  Matt.  vii.  15;  xxiv.  it  ;  xxiv.  23,  24.  Mark  xiii.  22.  Rom. 
xvi.  17,  18.  Eph.  v.  6.  Col.  ii.  6.  II  Peter  ii.  2,  3.  The  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  xx.  29,  30. 

6  Same  testimonies  as  citation  No.  5,  and  also  I  Cor.  xi, 
from  v.  18  on. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  53 

of  the  dogma  and  to  omit  another;  to  speak  of  some 
moral  precept  while  keeping  silence  on  others ;  to 
proclaim  certain  specific  sacraments,  and  overlook 
others,  was  not  that  to  open  a  wide  breach  to  error 
and  to  doubt?  Was  not  that  equal  to  befriending  the 
very  evil-doers  whom  they  purposed  by  their  writings 
to  banish  from  their  Church?  The  soundest  his- 
torical judgment  rejects  so  monstrous  an  aberration. 
Could  it  be  believed  that  they  have  delivered  up  to 
the  crowd  some  portion  of  their  sacred  trust,  when 
they  well  knew  that  from  the  masses  would  arise  the 
adulterations?  Besides,  that  was  opposed  to  the  very 
teachings  of  Christ  upon  tradition. 

7  Jesus  Christ  knew,  and  they  could  see,  that  by 
means  of  tradition  the  former  synagogue  had  falsi- 
fied and  prevented  the  true  laws ; 8  Jesus  Christ  knew, 
and  they  could  see,  that  thanks  to  tradition,  the  syna- 
gogue had  created  an  organization  and  a  code  other 
than  the  right  ones ;  hence,  the  reason  why  Christ 
arose  against  tradition,  accused  it  of  forgery,  used 
severe  language  towards  it  and  against  its  followers, 
and  rejected  it  as  an  injurious  doctrinal  teaching.9 
Since  Jesus  condemned  the  old  tradition,  and  the 
apostles  knew  of  His  prohibition,  as  well  as  of  the 
great  evils  that  the  former  was  causing,  can  it  be  ad- 
mitted, can  anyone  explain,  for  what  possible  reason 
they  should  have  committed  to  the  care  of  tradition 
any  portion  of  their  dogmas,  of  their  morals,  or  of 

7  Consult  Matt.  xv.  1-9.  Consult  Mark  vii.  5,  6.  Consult 
Col.  ii.  8.     Consult  Luke  xii.  1. 

8  Matt,  xxiii.     Luke  xi.  39,  40,  41,  42.     Mark  vii.  4-14. 
8  Luke  xiii.  15,  and  also  citation  on  No.  8. 


54  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

their  sacraments?10  If  both  Jesus  and  the  apostles 
looked  upon  it  as  a  wicked  tradition  of  corruption 
and  prevarication,  how  can  we  believe  that  they  would 
intrust  to  it  any  one  of  the  things  necessary  to  our 
salvation?  Does  not  this  assumption  involve  a  most 
evident  contradiction?  Would  not  this  be  equivalent 
to  an  act  of  approval,  of  that  which  they  so  strongly 
condemn  in  their  writings  ?  Would  not  this  be  lacking 
in  sincerity  and  honesty? 

Since  we  are  reasoning  according  to  human  judg- 
ment, let  us  advance  a  few  historical  considerations 
that  bear  out  our  contention. 

Suppose  for  a  moment  that  after  the  death  of  the 
immortal  hero,  Washington,  some  criminally  disposed 
person  had  written  pamphlets  libeling  his  wonderful 
mission  to  this  great  nation;  that  some  should  pre- 
sume to  discredit  his  military  genius,  misrepresenting 
his  most  important  feats  of  arms;  that  others  should 
deny  him  his  political  ability,  mutilating  and  pervert- 
ing his  principles,  that  still  others  should  try  to  im- 
pugn his  public  and  private  character,  by  inventing 
and  divulging  atrocious  calumnies ! 

Suppose  that  an  intimate  friend"  of  this  immortal 
hero,  contemporaneous  with  him,  and  knowing  all  and 
every  one  of  his  deeds,  comes  to  his  defense  by  writ- 
ing his  true  biography. 

Would  you  understand  such  an  author  as  likely  to 
omit  knowingly  any  important  fact  relating  to  the 
public  and  private  life  of  his  exalted  subject?     Can 

"Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Gospel  already  cited;  also 
I  John  iv.  1-4.  Eusebius:  Ecclesiastical  History;  Heresies  of 
the  First  Century.  Rohrbacher :  Same  head.  Jaugey :  First 
Century  of  the  Church. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  55 

you  conceive  that  he  would  neglect  to  write  some- 
thing- on  all  indispensable  circumstances  such  as  would 
tend  to  make  his  life  shine  in  the  heaven  of  history, 
as  the  sun  shines  in  our  planetary  system?  And  if 
consciously  he  did  omit  something  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  successfully  dispel  the  calumnies  so  made  pub- 
lic, would  not  such  a  historian  be  guilty  not  only  of 
Icsc-majcstc  (high  treason)  but  assist  also  in  promul- 
gating the  calumny? 

Apply  then,  this  reasoning  to  our  case.  Ever  since 
the  first  century  atrocious  and  frightful  calumnies  have 
been  launched  against  Jesus  Christ.11  His  divine  mis- 
sion is  either  denied  or  ignored,  as  is  His  human  na- 
ture ;  His  doctrine  is  distorted ;  His  sacraments  are 
falsified,12  and  the  apostles,  Christ's  intimate  friends, 
and  ear-witnesses  of  His  preaching,  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  His  doctrine,  come  out  in  His  defense, 
compiling  it  and  writing  it  up.  Can  you  understand 
their  omitting  anything  fundamental,  anything  con- 
structive? And  if  they  should  knowingly  omit  some- 
thing, would  not  that  show  the  apostles  as  being  at 
times  the  means  and  cause  of  propagating  error  and 
heresy?  Such  an  omission  would  be  inconceivable  to 
human  judgment. 

13  Only  those  having  a  preconceived  interest  in  the 
subject  would  be  able  to  grasp  its  meaning;  but  in 
the  mind  of  impartial  thinkers  and  clear  reasoners, 
everything  must  have  been  left  recorded. 

11  St.  Paul :  Epistle  I  to  the  Corinthians,  especially  chap,  xi ; 
also  read  citation  No.  io. 

12  Same  authorities  as  cited  on  Nos.  8,  g,  io  and  n. 

13  Balmes  :  Criterion  :  Rules  to  Judge  History.  Granclaude  : 
Same  heading. 


56  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Here  is  the  main  argument  of  Romanism:  looking 
into  its  Gospel,  St.  John  declares :  "And  there  are 
also  many  other  things  which  Jesus  did,  the  which,  if 
they  should  be  written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even 
the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books  that  should 
be  written."  St.  Paul  in  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy, 
remarks :  "The  traditions  received  from  me,"  Rom- 
anism says  then:  "Not  everything  was  left  written, 
therefore  we  must  heed  tradition."  St.  John  teaches 
the  first,  St.  Paul  orders  the  second.  Pause,  Roman- 
ist, for  within  your  own  and  more  commendable  exe- 
gesis, Protestantism  can  find  a  satisfactory  answer. 
Let  us  proceed  in  order  as  taught  by  your  scholasticism. 
We  are  dealing  with  a  grave  question,  and  it  is  worth 
while  to  look  into  it  minutely  and  conscientiously, 
in  order  to  deduce  from  it  the  only  rational  agree- 
ment. Let  us  see  what  St.  John  says,  what  Roman- 
ism affirms,  and  what  Protestantism  denies.  Only 
by  connecting  these  three  points  shall  we  be  able  to 
reach  a  positive  result,  and  one  conformable  to  bib- 
lical exegesis.  To  begin  with:  It  seems  to  us 
that  no  Romanist  would  venture  to  take  literally  the 
passage  quoted  from  St.  John,14  because  the  world 
is  very  large,  and  Jesus'  public  life,  although  astound- 
ing and  admirable,  is  too  short  to  provide  sufficient 
matter  for  so  colossal  a  number  of  books,  as  not  to 
find  room  in  space.  'We  do  not  suppose  anyone  so 
foolish  as  to  dare  to  believe  so  much,  and,  therefore, 
we  must  interpret  that  passage  with  mica  salis  (with 
a  grain  of  salt)    as  some  of  your  scholastics  would 

14  St.  John :    Gospel,  last  chap.,  last  v. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  57 

say.  Such  words  must  be  taken  as  hyperbolical,  in 
the  language  of  rhetoric.15 

That  passage,  reduced  to  its  logical  term  by  exe- 
gesis and  rhetoric,  would  mean  that  neither  were  all 
and  every  word  spoken  by  Christ  copied,  nor  were  all 
and  every  one  of  His  miracles  recorded.  But  what 
will  you  have  gained  by  that  wonderful  discovery? 
From  where  have  you  deduced  that  Protestantism 
believes  that  all  and  every  one  of  Christ's  words,  and 
all  and  every  one  of  His  deeds  were  recorded  in  writ- 
ing?10 

Do  not  confound  the  terms :  The  only  thing  that 
Protestantism  asserts  is,  that  everything  that  must 
be  believed  and  practised,  everything  that  must  be  ac- 
complished and  received,  was  left  written. 

That  is  their  affirmation.  And  is  there,  perchance, 
any  contradiction  between  the  Protestant  dogma  and 
the  words  of  St.  John?  Read  over  carefully  the  pas- 
sage, apply  it  as  prescribed  by  your  own  exegesis 
and  enlightened  reason,  and  you  will  see  that  said 
passage  is  more  opposed  to  Romanism  than  to  Protest- 
antism. Does  St.  John  say  that  among  the  innum- 
erable words  uttered  by  Christ,  that  he  did  not  copy, 
and  among  the  uncountable  deeds  that  Christ  per- 
formed that  he  did  not  record,  there  exist  any  new 
precepts,  any  new  dogmas  or  any  different  sacraments  ? 
And  since  St.  John  says  nothing,  because  it  was  im- 
possible, because  it  would  have  been  contradictory,  of 
what  use  is  it  to  you  to  invoke  testimony  that  means 

15  Colonnia :   Rhetoric. 

16  Encyclopedia  Britannica ;  Luther  and  Lutheranism,  Cal- 
vin and  Presbyterian. 


58  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

nothing,  unless  it  is  that  the  Protestants  are  right? 
Because  since  St.  John  writes  the  life  of  Christ,  of 
His  dogma  and  of  His  morals,  do  you  not  understand 
that  if  he  omits  something  it  is  on  account  of  its  ir- 
relevancy to  those  morals  and  to  that  dogma?  Can 
you  not  see  that  he  himself  proclaims  it  thus,  since 
he  gives  no  directions  on  the  subject?  If,  on  saying 
that  he  omitted  part  of  Jesus'  preachings  and  of  His 
miracles,  St.  John  had  added  that  such  a  portion  as  he 
did  not  copy  carried  within  itself  new  teachings  that 
must  be  followed,  embodied  different  moral  precepts, 
separate  sacraments  which  were  indispensable  to  re- 
ceive: then  only  could  such  words  give  cause  for 
doubt.  But  as  nothing  of  the  kind  is  said,  you  cannot 
deduce  anything  in  your  favor.  It  is  only  the  Prot- 
estants who  can  profit  by  that  passage,  since  it  shows 
the  difference  between  a  fundamental  doctrine  and 
that  which  is  auxiliary.17  But  it  is  desirable  that  a 
more  exegetic  answer  be  given  you,  a  reply  in  ac- 
cordance with  your  own  doctrine.  In  studying  some 
of  the  allusions  contained  in  the  sacred  writings,  espe- 
cially the  Old  Testament,  it  is  quite  evident  that  some 
of  the  inspired  books  were  lost.18  Such  is  the  opinion 
of  many  holy  Fathers  19  and  of  not  a  few  expositors,20 
but  they  all  unanimously  agree  in  asserting,  that  in 
that  case,  either  they  did  not  contain  any  dogmatic 
truths  or  moral  precepts,  or  that  if  they  contained  them, 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  would  be  indispensable 

17  John  xx.  30,  31. 

18  Read  Comely  on  this  question. 

19  St.  Augustine,  St.  Jerome  and  others  on  this  subject. 

20  Vigouroux,  Patrizi,  Lobera  and  Caminero. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  59 

to  salvation,  as  the  contrary  would  be  repugnant  to 
the  economy  of  divine  providence. 

We  are,  therefore,  in  the  same  identical  case :  every- 
thing that  it  pleased  Jesus  Christ  to  teach  as  dog- 
matic, everything  that  He  wished  to  impress  upon 
humanity  as  a  teacher,  all  remained  written.  Let  us 
illustrate  this  most  weighty  doctrine  with  some  ex- 
ample that  may,  so  to  speak,  render  it  more  percepti- 
ble. Suppose  that  a  very  learned  man  wrote  a  vo- 
luminous work,  and  that  later  on  some  one  else,  in 
fewer  words,  were  to  extract  synthetically  a  com- 
pendium of  all  the  principles  therein  formulated  and 
all  the  truths  therein  demonstrated.  If  such  a  com- 
pendium reproduced  all  and  each  of  the  truths,  all  and 
each  of  the  principles  contained  in  the  main  work, 
would  it  cease  to  be  complete  because  it  was  smaller 
and  did  not  contain  all  the  words  of  the  original  work? 
Certainly  not.  Our  case  is  absolutely  similar.  The 
author  of  the  great  work  is  Christ  in  His  divine  life 
and  infallible  preaching;  the  writer  of  the  compen- 
dium is  St.  John  21  and  the  one  who  comes  out  vocif- 
erating "that  the  compendium  is  not  complete  because 
it  does  not  embrace  all  the  preaching  of  Christ"  is 
the  Romanist.  But  in  turn  Protestantism  rises,  and 
with  its  usual  good  sense  reaches  a  masterly  solution 
by  saying:  "it  is22  complete  as  regards  the  substance 
and  the  doctrine;  it  is  incomplete  in  that  it  does  not 
contain  all  the  words  of  Christ,  nor  all  His  miracles ; 

21  Consult  St.  John  and  connect  his  Gospel  with  his  last 
chapter  and  verses. 

23  Encyclopedia  Britannica;  Luther  and  Lutheranism,  Cal- 
vin and  Presbyterian. 


60  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

this  last  I  present  to  thee  as  an  ornament,  for  I  have 
more  than  enough  with  the  first." 

Still  more  obvious  and  simple  is  the  answer  to  the 
argument  based  on  St.  Paul's  words.23  He  explains  to 
Timothy  principally  the  precepts  to  be  observed  by  the 
head  of  a  Church,  and  incidentally  touches  upon  the 
obligations  inherent  in  a  Christian;  but  as  Timothy 
frequently  accompanied  St.  Paul,  and  often  by  the 
latter's  orders,  wrote  some  letters  to  the  faithful,  St. 
Paul  took  occasion  to  remind  him,  not  to  forget  either. 
It  was  like  saying  to  him:  "What  thou  knowest  al- 
ready by  other  letters  written  by  thyself,  and  what  I 
now  tell  thee,  thou  must  observe  to  be  perfect."  Let 
Romanism  seek  the  light  in  the  Gospel  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  apostles,  for  it  will  never  find  anything 
to  favor  tradition  as  it  proclaims  it.  The  very  force- 
ful language  used  by  Christ 24  in  rejecting  the  Judaical 
tradition  was  still  buzzing  in  the  ears  of  the  apostles ; 
they  still  remembered  those  severe  words,  those  sar- 
castic and  steel-like  epithets  which  he  applied  to  the 
wicked  scribes  and  Pharisees  who,  standing  on  tradi- 
tion,25 had  outraged  the  law  and  perverted  the  dogma. 
How,  then,  could  they  be  so  disrespectful  to  their 
Master  and  so  short-sighted  as  to  knowingly  promote 
abuses  with  lamentable  consequences  so  much  deplored 
by  themselves? 

Tradition,  then,  in  the  spirit  that  Romanism  takes 
it,  is  indefensible;    it  is  opposed  to  the  character  of 

23  St.  Paul:   II  Tim.  i.  13;    ii.  2. 

24  Matt,  xxiii.  13-36;   Luke  xii.  1;  also  xi.  39-42. 

25  Same  authorities  cited  on  the  last  two  citations. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  6r 

Christ,  to  the  nature  and  epoch  when  the  gospels  were 
written ;  it  is  contrary  to  divine  inspiration  and  the 
economy  of  God's  providence;  common  sense  rejects 
it,  exegesis  combats  it,  and  critical  judgment  repels  it 
as  irrational. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    CHURCH    ACCORDING    TO    THE    GOSPELS,    AND    THE 
WRITINGS   OF   THE  APOSTLES. 

HAVING  adopted  the  New  Testament  as  the 
standard  for  our  discussion,  it  must  be  the  one 
to  decide,  as  the  supreme  judge,  upon  all  the  ques- 
tions at  issue  between  Protestantism  and  Romanism. 
These  may  be  reduced  to  five  different  questions, 
namely:  First,  Constitution  of  the  true  Church;  sec- 
ond, Characteristics  it  should  possess;  third,  Number 
of  Sacraments,  and  the  essential  elements  necessary  to 
their  integrity;  fourth,  Worship  and  the  form  to  be 
adopted;  fifth,  What,  if  any,  innovations  exist? 

Whoever  examines  the  Gospels,  hoping  to  find  in 
them  a  close  and  compact  doctrinal  body,  similar  to 
a  modern  treatise,  will  be  grievously  disappointed.1 
Christ  expounds  His  doctrine  by  means  of  apho- 
risms and  parables,  in  which  there  does  not  exist  any 
kind  of  methodical  inference.  According  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  moment,  the  quality  of  His  hearers, 
the  objections  of  His  opponents,  does  He  proceed, 
sometimes  explaining  a  precept,  at  others  correcting 
some   vice,   or   again   speaking   on   a   sacrament;   but 

1  Read  the  Gospels,  and  the  truth  of  this  assertion  will  be 
seen.    Only  that  in  St.  John's  Gospel  and  in  some  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  there  appears  some  method. 
(62) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  63 

without  His  teachings  ever  conforming  to  any  studied 
or  systematic  method.  In  order  to  properly  grasp 
His  doctrine,  it  is  necessary  to  follow  His  every  step, 
from  one  people  to  another,  from  one  parable  to  an- 
other, from  one  aphorism  to  another.  It  is  necessary 
to  connect  the  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  to  seek, 
as  it  were,  the  resultant.2  Then  it  becomes  clear 
that  His  dogma  is  reduced  to  a  very  few  fundamental 
truths ;  that  His  precepts  are  not  numerous  but  most 
important;  that  His  sacraments  are  very  simple  and 
clear.  Then  it  appears  also  3  that  there  exist  in  His 
dogma  and  in  His  morals,  certain  points  that  He 
favors  most;  some,  He  never  tires  of  repeating  and 
inculcating  on  His  hearers,4  while  others  He  only 
touches  upon  incidentally.  On  no  point,  perhaps  ex- 
cepting the  clearness  of  His  exposition,  does  Christ 
insist  more  often  in  His  Church,  than  upon  its  founda- 
tion. Similes,  parables,  apologies,  allegories — every- 
thing,5 in  fact,  is  used  by  Christ  to  illustrate  to  us 
His  establishment  and  His  organization.  We  will  not 
dwell  at  length  upon  the  establishment  of  the  Church. 
Since  it  is  our  purpose  to  limit  ourselves  only  to  the 
differences  between  Protestantism  and  Romanism,  and 
to  determine  which  are  better  grounded  in  the  sacred 
Books,  we  will  not  delay  in  proving  the  existence  of 

*  Read  Camunero :    Manual  Isagogicum   (Biblical  Manual); 
General  Rules  of  Exegesis. 
s  See  same  author :    Synthesis  of  Christ's  Doctrine. 

4  See  St.  John's  Gospel,  and  it  will  be  seen  how  frequently 
he  inculcates  charity.  In  all  his  Gospels  he  insists  numberless 
times  on  meekness,  modesty,  etc. 

5  See  Matthew,  chapters  xiii  and  xv,  and  the  other  Gospels, 
in  the  respective  paragraphs  dealing  with  the  same  parables. 

6 


64  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  Church,  inasmuch  as  both  these  professed  religions 
believe  in  such  existence.6  The  discussion  will  arise 
afterwards,  when  we  come  to  assign  to  the  "True 
Church"  its  properties  and  characteristics,  its  function 
and  organization.  Anyone  wishing  to  convince  him- 
self that  Christ  did  establish  the  Church,  has  but  to 
peruse  the  chapters  and  verses  quoted  in  the  margin.7 
In  them  he  will  find  a  complete  demonstration  that 
Christ  presupposed  collectivity  in  the  Church,  for 
sometimes  he  uses  the  expression,  "God's  kingdom," 
at  others,  the  "coming  of  God's  kingdom,"  and  some- 
times the  concrete  word,  "Church."  Now  He  com- 
pares it  to  a  field  of  rye  and  good  wheat  growing 
together;  again  to  a  net  catching  good  and  bad  fish; 
still  again  to  a  mustard  seed,  which,  although  it  be 
the  smallest  of  grains,  yet  produces  one  of  the  most 
luxuriant  of  plants. 

But  where  the  difficulty  arises  is  not  in  confessing 
the  existence  of  the  Church,  whereon  both  Protestants 
and  Catholics  are  agreed,  but  mainly  on  its  organiza- 
tion. Should  it  be  democratic  or  aristocratic?  That 
is  the  question,  the  answer  to  which  separates  Protest- 
ants from  Catholics,  and  disunites  both  from  their 
own  organizations,  because  neither  do  all 8  the  Catho- 
lics consider  it  absolute,  however  much  they  may  pro- 

e  Confession  of  Augsburg.  Read  Luther  and  Calvin  in  En- 
cyclopedia Britannica.     Also  read  all  the  Roman  theologians. 

7  Matt.  xvi.  18;  xviii.  17.  Mark  iv.  John  x.  Acts  v.  11; 
viii.  3;  v.  27.  The  exclusion  with  which  they  sometimes  con- 
demn the  heretics  and  scandalous  proves  the  same;  for  in- 
stance: Rom.  xvi.  17.  I  Cor.  v.  9.  II  Thess.  iii.  6,  14. 
II  John  10. 

8  Read  Cardinal  Gonzalez:  Address  on  the  organization  of 
the  Church.    Declarations  of  the  Gallican  clergy. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  65 

claim  it  as  monarchical,  nor  do  all 9  the  Protestants 
agree  in  proclaiming  it  either  democratic  or  aristo- 
cratic. 

Let  us  see  whether,  through  systems  so  intricate 
and  tortuous,  we  can  discover  the  light  and  establish 
the  true  system,  the  one  that  unequivocally  proceeds 
from  the  Divine  Word,  from  Christ's  own  august 
authority. 

This  is  precisely  a  point  that  at  once  strikes  the  eye 
of  whoever  reads  the  New  Testament  without  bias. 
There  is  perhaps  no  more  oft-repeated  doctrine,  and 
none  stated  with  greater  clearness  and  energy,  than 
the  doctrine  referring  to  the  organization  of  the 
Church.  There  are  teachings  showing  us  how  Christ 
does  not  wish  it  to  be,  and  others  ordaining  how  it 
should  be.  He  sets  and  establishes  it,  as  the  scholastic 
would  say,  in  the  negative  and  in  its  positive  sides. 
In  order  to  understand  the  mind  of  Christ  concern- 
ing the  organization  of  His  Church,  it  is  very  neces- 
sary to  bear  in  mind  the  two  kinds  of  organized 
powers  that  ruled  Palestine  in  those  times :  First,  the 
theocratic,  represented  by  the  synagogue ;  and  second, 
the  civil,  represented  by  the  Roman  delegates. 

To  Christ's  most  humble  eyes,  both  forms  of  or- 
ganization appeared  monstrous  and  repulsive.  Far 
from  inspiring  Him  with  esteem  or  respect,10  both 
awakened  in  Him  only  indignation  and  profound  con- 
tempt. No,  He  does  not  wish  indeed  that  His  Church 
should  imitate  either  of  the  two,  He  does  not  wish  it 

8  See    heads    in    Encyclopedia    Britannica:      Presbyterians, 
Episcopalians,  Baptists. 
"'Read  Matt.  x.  6.    Mark  viii.  15. 


66  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

to  have  the  least  resemblance  to  either,  but  He  does 
wish,  that  the  organization  of  His  Church  be  the  liv- 
ing and  obvious  denial  of  those  organizations,  and 
that  where  they  said  yes  His  should  say  no.  This  is 
the  thought  that  seemed  to  absorb  the  mind  of  Christ ; 
which  we  see  referred  to  in  all  the  Gospels;  and 
which  some  of  the  Evangelists  repeated  thrice,  such 
was  the  insistence  that  Jesus  laid  upon  it  in  His  teach- 
ings.11 The  crowned  heads  of  earth,  says  He,  reside 
in  royal  palaces,  like  to  have  numerous  servants,  and 
domestics  to  wait  upon  them,  in  all  their  acts  love  to 
make  a  show  of  power  and  dominion  over  others,  in- 
sist on  being  called  lords,  eat  and  feast  sumptuously 
at  splendidly  served  tables,  and  live  in  grandeur  and 
magnificence.  Such  is  a  characteristic  example  of 
civil  power,  in  describing  which  He  omits  nothing; 
He  speaks  of  its  internal  working,  of  its  external 
manifestations,  such  as  might  and  authority,  luxury 
and  pompous  show ;  He  speaks  of  its  public  and  private 
displays — luxury  of  servants,  submission  and  hom- 
age from  others,  of  the  stately  appearance  in  dress 
and  speech;  and  speaking  of  the  private  side,  He 
enumerates  the  palaces,  the  attendants  and  their  treat- 
ment. Jesus  Christ  shows  the  well-marked  purpose 
to  determine  with  precision  and  minuteness  the  con- 
stituent elements  of  civil  power,  so  as  to  better  elimi- 
nate all  of  them  from  the  organization  of  His  Church. 
Let  us  now  see  how  He  characterizes  the  theocratic 
or  religious  power  of  His  time : 12     The  scribes  and 

11  Matt.  xx.  25-28;  xxiii.  8-12.    Mark  x.  42-45. 

12  Read  the  chapter  mentioned  and  also  Matt.  xv.  1-11.    Mark 
vii.  1-13.    I  Peter  v.  3. 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.      67 

Pharisees  like  to  be  called  fathers  and  masters ;  they 
expect  from  others  the  consideration  and  obedience 
due  to  such;  they  choose  the  foremost  seats  at  public 
functions ;  they  dress  with  show  and  walk  with  arro- 
gance; they  interpret  the  law  according  to  their  own 
convenience  and  impose  upon  others  heavy  penalties 
from  which  they  are  exempt;  they  are  harsh  and 
haughty  toward  the  meek  and  humble,  while  they 
flatter  the  rich  and  powerful;  they  enjoy  appearing 
in  showy  religious  garbs ;  but  within,  they  are  hun- 
gry wolves,  putrid  sepulchers,  depraved  souls.  There 
we  have  another  minute  description,  lacking  in  noth- 
ing to  enable  us  to  form  a  complete  idea  of  that 
haughty  and  hypocritical  body  that  monopolized  all 
religious  teaching  during  Christ's  epoch. 

We  almost  see  those  two  Powers  photographed  in 
their  respective  characters.  And  what  judgment  does 
Christ  pass  upon  them?  To  His  apostles,  says  He: 
"Beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Herodians  (Roman  Or- 
ganization) and  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  (theo- 
cratic Power).  Throw  away  from  you  as  a  deadly 
poison  everything  transcending  to  either  of  those 
Powers.  See  ye  here  how  I  wish  my  Church  to  be, 
and  how  the  duties  pertaining  to  it  must  be  allotted 
and  performed.  In  the  Powers  before  mentioned 
there  is  one  to  command  and  one  to  obey;  not  so 
amongst  ye,  who  must  all  obey  each  other  recipro- 
cally ; 13  in  the  said  Powers  there  are  lords  and  serv- 
ants ;  not  so  in  my  Church,  which  must  contain  only 
sons  and  brothers,  since  there  exists  as  father  only 

18  Read  Matt,  xviii  and  Mark  ix.  35. 


68  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

your  Heavenly  Father,  and  as  master  your  God; 
therefore  take  great  care  never  to  call  any  one  'lord,' 
nor  'father,'  nor  'master,'  lest  ye  give  offense  to 
your  only  Heavenly  Father  and  to  your  only  master, 
God ;  take  great  care  that  none  amongst  you  arrogate 
to  himself  the  title  of  'lord'  or  'father'  or  'master/ 
lest  he  become  an  infractor  of  my  doctrine  and  an 
enemy  to  God.  Sons  of  one  only  Father,  you  are 
equally  brothers ;  vassals  of  the  same  God,  you  are 
equally  free.  Let  not  one  of  you  wish  to  preside  over 
the  others.14  He  who  thinks  himself  greatest  is  the 
smallest  and  must  wait  upon  the  others.  He  who 
humbles  himself  most  shall  be  more  exalted,  and  he 
who  is  proudest  shall  be  the  most  humbled  and  con- 
fused. Let  modesty  and  meekness  excel  in  your  words 
and  deeds.15  Flee  from  the  gaudy  luxury  of  outside 
show  as  not  proper  to  my  Church.  By  lowliness  you 
will  subdue  human  pride;  by  modesty  subdue  luxury; 
by  simplicity  conquer  malice ;  be,  in  short,  gentle 
lambs  among  wild  wolves  and  you  will  triumph  over 
the  world.  Let  nothing  frighten  or  terrify  you,  for  I 
will  be  with  you  till  the  end  of  time.  Where  two  or 
three  of  you  congregate  16  there  will  I  be  to  preside 
over  and  help  you.  My  spirit  and  my  power,  my 
wisdom  and  my  love  will  accompany  you  everywhere, 
and  the  same  as  I  triumphed  over  the  world,  so  shall 
you  triumph;  the  same  as  the  world  hated  me,  so  it 
will  hate  you ;  but  above  the  power  of  the  world  there 
is  my  power,  which  I  will  communicate  to  you ;  over 

14  See  the  three  foregoing  notes. 

15  Read  nearly  all  the  chapters  of  the  Gospel. 
18  Matt,  xviii.  19,  20. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  69 

the  world's  learning  the  wisdom  that  will  be  granted 
to  you  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  over  the  world's  per- 
secution there  is  my  help  omnipotent,  that  can  do  all." 
And  wishing  these  principles  to  remain  deeply  en- 
graved in  their  minds,  carved,  so  to  speak,  in  their 
hearts,  on  the  eve  of  His  glorious  passion,  on  the  most 
memorable  date  of  His  august  life,  at  the  moment  of 
the  supreme  mysteries  (according  to  the  Catholic 
Church),  at  that  everlasting  hour,  after  He  had  syn- 
thetized  as  a  basis  of  His  moral  teaching,  the  holiest 
precept  of  universal  charity ;  of  His  dogma,  the  procla- 
mation of  His  divinity;  and  of  His  institutions,  the 
Eucharist,  as  the  final  coronation  of  His  august  work, 
as  a  last  legacy,  in  His  Testament,  He  returns  to  the 
constitution  of  His  Church,  and  gives  to  His  disciples 
the  most  astonishing  example  of  humility  practised 
during  His  life.  He  commands 17  everyone  to  sit 
down,  orders  a  wash  basin  with  water  to  be  brought, 
kneels  at  the  feet  of  His  apostles  and  washes  the  feet 
of  them  all.  And  when  His  disciples  had  scarcely 
recovered  from  their  profound  amazement  that  so  un- 
expected an  act  had  caused  in  them,  Christ  exclaims 
as  follows,  in  a  voice  at  once  magnificent  and  impos- 
ing: "You  call  me  lord  and  master,  and  you  mistake 
not,  for  I  am  such.  For  if  I,  who  am  truly  your  lord 
and  master,  humble  myself  to  wash  your  feet,  so  with 
greater  reason  must  you  humble  yourselves  toward 
one  another,  and  as  I  did  just  now  must  you  do  al- 
ways.18 Away  from  you,  all  idea  of  command  and 
authority  all  thought  of  exaltation  and  pride,  away 
from   you   all   imperial   distinction,   all   semblance  of 

"John  xiii.  1-24.    "The  same. 


JO  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

superiority.  Humbleness  must  be  the  basis  of  my 
Church,  charity  its  summit,  and  I  condemn  and  abomi- 
nate everything  that  may  tend  to  pollute  it."  O  sover- 
eign, magnificent  and  divine  democracy!  Thou  wert 
the  fruitful  dawn  of  true  liberty!  Thou  wert  the 
legitimate  beginning  of  universal  brotherhood !  Thou 
wert  the  mighty  germ  of  a  harmonious  equality!  O 
blessed  Christian  democracy !  Thou  didst  overthrow 
the  narrow  and  proud  synagogue,  felling  to  the 
ground  its  proud  and  senile  priesthood;  O  a  thou- 
sand times  venerable  and  worshiped  Christian  de- 
mocracy ! 19  Thou  didst  demolish  the  great  mountain 
of  the  despotic  pagan  empire,  and  where  before 
existed  the  odious  distinction  between  freemen  and 
slaves,  between  masters  and  servants,  thou  didst  pro- 
claim liberty  to  the  sons  of  God,  and  not  a  degrading 
subjection  to  man,  but  to  the  authority  of  reason,  to 
the  laws  of  justice.  Those  who  in  future  may  have 
the  power  to  command,  shall  no  longer  do  so  wanton- 
ly, nor  despotically  and  tyranically,  but  in  accordance 
with  reason  and  justice,  and  if  besides  occupying  a 
high  rank,  they  are  also  Catholic,  they  will  have  to  be 
servants  of  servants,  who  obey  them.  Oh!  if  as  Thy 
Gospels  have  endured  through  the  centuries  Thy  meek 
and  life-giving  spirit  had  also  been  preserved!  Oh! 
if  as  Thy  first  apostles  and  disciples,  impregnated  with 
Thy  divine  teachings  and  powerful  examples,  estab- 
lished the  first  congregations  of  the  faithful,  on  the 
grounds  of  humility  and  charity,20  those  who  pride 

19  Monsabre  :    Conferences  upon  Christ's  Doctrine. 
20Castelar:    Revolucion   Religiosa    (Religious  Revolution); 
Book  III. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  Jl 

themselves  on  being  their  successors  had  only  followed 
in  the  same  wake,  how  many  black  pages  that  stain 
ecclesiastical  history  would  never  have  been  written ; 
how  many  bloody  furrows  that  are  an  affront  to  hu- 
manity would  never  have  been  filled !  How  many  dis- 
turbances, desolations,  drawbacks  that  have  hindered 
and  vitiated  our  civilization  would  have  been  avoided ! 
But,  no !  most  meek  and  gentle  Jesus,  the  first  to 
trample  under  foot  Thy  humble  spirit,  are  those  who 
pride  themselves  on  being  the  sole  depositories  of  Thy 
doctrine.  Thy  commands  were  that  preaching  and 
mildness  should  be  the  channels  of  Thy  teaching,  but 
they  will  construct  the  dungeon,21  they  will  raise  the 
scaffold,  they  will  fire  the  stake  to  the  unbeliever. 
Thy  command  to  Thy  followers  was  to  avoid  all  showy 
servitude,  but  he  who  calls  himself  the  successor  22  to 
the  poor  and  humble  fisherman,  will  reckon  his  serv- 
ants by  the  thousand,  and  even  his  menials  must  be 
the  great  and  the  noble.  Thou  didst  say  that  those 
who  were  Thine  should  not  dwell  in  regal  palaces, 
as  that  was  contrary  to  Thy  humble  doctrine;  but  the 
successor  to  the  meek  fisherman  inhabits  23  a  palace 
so  vast  and  sumptuous,  so  showy  and  regal,  that  the 
residences  of  the  great  on  earth,  the  palaces  of  the 
kings  and  emperors  throughout  the  world,  the  build- 
ings Thou  didst  see  with  horror  and  didst  indignantly 
abominate,  are  as  nothing  compared  to  this  vast 
palace;  they  are  even  as  the  humblest  huts,  as  the 
poorest  shelters  beside  its  magnificence.     Thou  didst 

21  Read  Father  Richard  Gapa :    Spanish  Inquisition. 

22  See    Manual    and    Manners   of   the   Vatican,    and   list   of 
servants. 

23  Anyone  can  become  convinced  by  merely  seeing  it. 


J2  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

say  that  not  one  of  Thine  should  assume  any  power 
or  authority  over  others,  but  the  successor  to  poor 
Peter  24  takes  upon  himself  such  jurisdiction,  that  the 
might  of  the  Roman  empire,  so  much  despised  by 
Thee,  were  not  even  a  shadow  compared  with  the 
power  attributed  to  the  Roman  Pontiff.  The  em- 
perors styled  themselves  divine,  but  were  considered 
as  men,  and  believed  their  decrees  liable  to  revocation 
and  amendment;  but  he  who  calls  himself  Thy  suc- 
cessor, calls  himself  irrefutable,  unimpeachable,25  in- 
fallible. Thou  didst  say  that  he  who  believed  himself 
greater  should  bow  to  the  smaller,  but  he  who  appro- 
priates Thy  representation  in  Rome  will  shut  his  door 26 
to  the  poor  and  the  humble,  and  when  the  noble  or 
the  rich  succeed  in  being  received  by  him,  they  will 
have  to  bend  the  knee27  and  prostrate  themselves  as 
before  a  divinity,  they  will  have  to  kiss  the  sandal 
as  to  a  God.28  Thou  didst  say  to  be  simple  in  treat- 
ment and  dress,  but  he  who  claims  to  be  Thy  visible 
head  on  earth  will  appear  cloaked  in  the  richest  garbs ; 
loaded  not  with  poverty  as  Thou  dost  prescribe,  but 
with  precious  stones,  and  seated  on  a  throne  29  as  a 
divinity  of  the  pagan  Olympus.     Thou  didst  feel  in- 

24  Read  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  Juris  Canonici  de 
Juribus  Pontificum  (Compendium  of  Canonical  Law  on  Pon- 
tifical Rights). 

26  Same  author  and  heading. 

28  Anyone  can  become  convinced  by  attempting  it  without 
money  or  without  being  a  noble.  Some  exception  is  some- 
times made  to  heretics. 

27  The  same  Vives.  We  prefer  quoting  this  author  because 
he  is  considered  an  oracle  among  Romanists. 

28  The  same  Cardinal  Vives :  Names  given  to  the  Pope  and 
conduct  to  be  observed  in  his  presence. 

29  Same  authors  mentioned  before. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  73 

dignant  against  the  hypocritical  Pharisees  who  mo- 
nopolized the  law  for  their  own  benefit  and  to  the  detri- 
ment of  others,  who  at  their  pleasure  issued  new  pre- 
cepts, the  fulfillment  of  which  they  exacted  from 
others,  while  considering  themselves  exempt;  but  Thy 
sovereign  Pontiff 30  centralizes  all  the  power  in  his 
despotic  hands,  he  is  the  only  source  of  jurisdiction 
and  command,  the  only  legislator,  the  only  judge,  and 
he  declares  himself  exempt  from  all  laws,  free  from 
judgment.  And  all  that  monstrous  show,  all  that  gather- 
ing of  arbitrary  proceedings  and  crushing  monopoly, 
they  endeavor  to  base  on  Thy  humble  doctrine,  on  Thy 
redeeming  teaching. 

If  Thou  shouldst  appear  anew  in  visible  form,  Thou 
wouldst  find  a  synagogue  and  an  empire,  prouder  and 
more  despotic  than  the  former  synagogue  and  the 
former  empire.  Thou  wouldst  also  need  now  as 
formerly,  to  grasp  the  whip  and  throw  out  of  Thy 
Church  the  traffickers  in  Thy  doctrine.  (We  beg  the 
writer  to  peruse  the  marginal  notes,  to  see  that  we 
do  not  make  any  statement  not  based  on  trustworthy 
and  irrefutable  evidence  taken  from  reliable  Romanist 
authorities.) 

One  need  no  longer  be  surprised  at  the  following 
Italian  saying:  "Roma  viduta,  fide  perdata"  (Rome 
seen,  faith  lost),  having  become  popular  in  Latin 
Europe,  although  it  should  be  modified  by  saying 
that  "when  Catholic  Rome  is  seen  and  studied,  all 
faith  in  Romanism  is  lost." 

80  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  Juris  Canonici  de  Juribus 
Pontiflcum  (Compendium  of  Canonical  Law  on  Pontifical 
Rights). 


74  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

But  as  Christ  energetically  proclaims,  that  He  did 
not  wish  the  power  of  jurisdiction  perpetuated  in  any 
of  His  followers,  He  proclaimed  as  energetically 
against  the  power  of  the  order  or  office.  Here  is  the 
question  that  impartially  and  with  abundance  of  data, 
we  are  going  to  expound  in  the  next  chapter.  Let 
not  the  two  questions  get  mixed,  for  as  the  reader 
will  see,  they  are  separate  and  distinct. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

DID     CHRIST     ESTABLISH     AN     OFFICIAL     JURISDICTION? 

AND    IF    SO   DID    HE   GRANT    IT   COLLECTIVELY,    OR 

WAS     IT     ASSIGNED     BY     HIM     TO     SOME 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  WHOLE? 

THIS  is  one  of  those  most  intricate  questions 
which  has  divided  and  continues  to  divide  the 
ranks  of  both  Catholics  and  Protestants.  We  will 
clearly  and  sincerely  expose  that  which  in  our  opin- 
ion we  consider  justified,  but  in  doing  so  we  do  not 
propose  to  confine  ourselves  exclusively  to  this  opinion. 
Consequently,  with  our  harmonious  and  tolerant  judg- 
ment, we  would  never  venture  to  consider  as  beyond 
the  pale  of  the  great  Christian  family,  nor  beyond  the 
spirit  of  Christ,  those  who,  while  not  openly  contra- 
dicting any  of  the  evident  evangelical  or  apostolic 
truths,  endeavor  nevertheless  to  ground  their  theories 
on  the  New  Testament.  On  this  question,  more  than 
on  any  other,  we  must  guard  ourselves  against  all 
idea  of  exclusivism,  and  remember  Christ's  tolerance, 
as  well  as  the  apostles'  ample  indulgence.1  The  apos- 
tles in  their  evangelistic  excursions  met  another  man, 
who  without  being  sent  by  Christ,  was  also  preaching 
and  expelling  demons,  and  they  begged  of  Christ  to 
forbid  him  doing  so ;  He  answered :     "I  will  do  noth- 

*Mark  x.  38,  39. 

(75) 


y6  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

ing  of  the  kind,  for  that  one  also  honors  me."  When 
St.  Paul  expounded  some  doctrine  about  which  he  had 
not  received  any  special  instructions  from  Christ 2  he 
would  say :  "I  understand  this  to  be  for  the  best,  but 
I  do  not  condemn  anything  contrary  to  it;  each  one 
can  have  his  own  feeling  and  opinion."  Upon  this 
standard  we  must  also  model  our  conduct.  Is  it 
evident  and  clear?  Let  us  bow  to  it,  never  forgetting 
that,  however  great  the  probability  may  be,  it  does 
not  exclude  error  from  our  opinion  nor  certainty  in 
that  of  another.3  Is  it  doubtful  or  confused?  Then 
let  each  one  freely  elect  whatever  he  thinks  best.  Not 
to  do  so  would  be  to  contradict  the  very  spirit  of  the 
Gospel  and  to  fall  into  the  same  narrow  and  despotic 
ways  charged  against  Romanism. 

If  the  allegations  adduced  were  not  sufficient  to  in- 
spire in  us  a  charitable  and  eclectic  judgment,  im- 
piety's own  example  should  prove  enough  to  do  so. 
Can  we  not  see  how  all  the  elements  of  ungodliness 
group  themselves  to  combat  the  supernatural  ? 4  Can 
we  not  see  that  within  their  organization  there  is 
as  much  room  for  the  pantheist  as  for  the  materialist, 
for  the  rationalist  as  for  the  positivist?  Dost  thou 
deny  the  supernatural?  Then  thou  art  ours,  no  mat- 
ter what  thy  arguments  and  thy  theories  may  be.  The 
argument  based  on  hypnotism,  which  presupposes  a 
psychic  principle,  is  as  good  for  us  as  the  one  deduced 

2 1  Cor.  vii.  25. 

3  Granclaude :  Philosophy  on  Probability.  Mendive:  Phi- 
losophy ;  Characteristics  of  Probability.  Zigliara :  Philoso- 
phy;   Conflicting  Probabilities. 

4Haeckel:  By-Laws  of  the  Anti-Religious  Society  recently 
established  in  Germany. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  J  J 

from  the  eternity  of  matter,  that  denies  all  vital  prin- 
ciple. The  ideal  pantheist,  who  denies  the  super- 
natural on  the  ground  that  there  is  nothing  real  in 
the  universe,  but  only  a  mere  representation  of  our 
subjective  ego,  is  as  admissible  to  us  as  the  material- 
istic pantheist  for  whom  everything  is  mere  substance, 
without  any  accident  or  ideality.  Let  us,  then,  join  the 
opposite  army.  Dost  thou  proclaim  the  divinity  of 
Christ  and  His  Gospel?  The  efficacy  of  His  redemp- 
tion and  the  mission  of  His  Church?  Dost  thou  not 
exclude  anything  that  is  clear?  Nothing  of  what  is 
self-evident  in  the  Bible?  Then,  come  in,  thou  art 
one  of  us.  Welcome  to  thee,  whichever  thy  congrega- 
tion may  be.  This  will  have  to  be  the  language  and 
the  conduct  of  the  great  Christian  community  if  it 
aims  to  successfully  stem  the  inroads  of  impiety,  and 
defend  its  own  existence.  No  energy  must  be  wasted 
on  discussions  that  we  might  call  domestic,  or  contro- 
versies with  those  at  home,  but  on  the  contrary,  hus- 
band it,  to  fight  and  resist  the  onslaughts  of  outsiders 
and  enemies. 

This  bright  thought  attributed  to  St.  Augustine, 
must  be  our  motto :  "In  necessariis  unit  as,  in  dubiis 
libertas,  in  omnibus  caritas:"  "In  things  necessary, 
unity;  in  things  doubtful,  liberty;  in  all  things,  char- 
ity." And  in  support  of  this  very  thought,  after  ex- 
pounding our  opinion,  we  will  also  shortly  give  the 
foundations  of  those  contrary  to  ours.  The  questions 
that  head  this  chapter  have  been  met  by  four  affirma- 
tions.5 All  of  them  suppose  that  Christ  established  an 
official  jurisdiction  and  made  a  difference  only  in  the 

8  See  Encyclopedia  Britannica ;    head,  Church. 


yS  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

assignment  of  such  jurisdiction.  The  first,  which  is 
the  most  radical  of  the  four,  supposes  that  Christ  es- 
tablish no  difference  between  clergymen  and  lay- 
men ; 6  all  faithful  are  also  ministers  and  priests,  if  the 
masses  appoint  and  delegate  their  authority  to  them. 
For  the  upholders  of  this  theory,  the  official  jurisdic- 
tion resides  with  the  collectivity,  and  the  latter  alone 
can  delegate  it  to  individuals,  either  permanently  or 
temporarily.  The  second  theory  attributes  to  divine 
origin,  the  designation  of  the  ministers,  and,  there- 
fore, supposes  that  Christ  and  the  apostles  had  previ- 
ously divided  the  masses  into  two  classes,  namely: 
Clergymen  and  laymen.7  But  what  kind  of  ministers 
did  Christ  select?  What  are  their  powers?  In  the 
answer  given  to  these  questions,  the  three  theories 
that  admit  divine  origin  for  the  distinction  between 
clergymen  and  laymen,  differ.  The  Presbyterians 
say :  The  priest  exists  only  from  divine  source.8  All 
the  sacraments  to  be  administered,  all  the  services  to 
be  performed  in  the  Church,  can,  and  must  be  done, 
by  the  priest,  considered  in  his  individual  or  his  col- 
lective capacity.  These  are  followed  by  the  Epis- 
copalians who  say : 9  Two  kinds  of  priests  are  of  di- 
vine source:  those  with  limited  authority  who  can 
only  administer  the  sacraments,  but  who  cannot  dele- 
gate their  powers  to  others  to  do  likewise ;  those  with 
limited  powers  also,  but  who  beside  themselves  ad- 

6  Same ;    head,  Baptist. 

7  Same ;  head,  Presbyter  and  Presbyterian. 

8  Same ;  head,  Calvin  and  Calvinism.  We  prefer  quoting 
this  work  because  beside  considering  it  as  one  of  the  soundest 
and  most  serious,  it  is  recommended  by  such  enlightened 
Romanists  as  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

9  Same  work ;  head,  Episcopate  and  Episcopalians. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  79 

ministering  the  sacraments,  can  delegate  others  to  do 
so.  We  incline  to  this  opinion,  believing  it  to  be 
better  establish  on  apostolic  history,  and  follow- 
ing it  most  closely.  The  fourth  10  affirmation  is  that 
of  the  Romanists,  who  suppose  that  besides  the  dis- 
tinction between  laymen  and  clergymen,  beside  the  ex- 
istence of  inferior  priests  and  superior  priests,  called 
bishops,  there  exist  lower  degrees  styled  deacons,  sub- 
deacons,  and  still  lesser  degrees  known  as  ostiaries, 
Gospel  readers,  exorcisers  and  acolytes,  and  over  all 
of  them  a  degree  superior  to  that  of  bishop,  which 
supersedes  them  all,  the  Pontiff.  This  is  the  theo- 
retical hierarchy,  the  one  defined  in  the  councils,  be- 
cause practically  there  is  another 1X  intermediary  de- 
gree between  the  bishop  and  the  Pontiff,  namely  car- 
dinal, a  dignity  superior  to  the  bishop's  in  the  honor 
it  confers,  and  yet  in  the  order  of  power  and  jurisdic- 
tion it  is  inferior  to  him  and  even  to  the  priest's,  since 
it  can  be  granted  to  a  simple  deacon.  There  is  no 
room  to  doubt  that  Christ 12  selected  the  twelve  apos- 
tles and  granted  to  them  faculties  not  granted  to  the 
masses.  He  orders  them  during  their  life  to  go  and 
preach  to  the  nations  the  kingdom  of  God,  He  be- 
stows upon  them  the  power  to  heal  the  sick  and  to 
expel  the  evil  spirits,  He  explains  in  advance  to  them 
the  parables  that   He   expounded   before  the  people, 

10  Cardinal  Vives  :  Compendium  Theologicum  de  Hierarchia 
(Theologicum  Compendium  on  Hierarchy).  Casanova:  Fun- 
damental Theology.  Bouix:  Jus  Canonicum  (Canonical 
Law)  ;    same  head. 

11  Cardinal  Vives,  Bouix  :  same  head.  Ferrais  :  Canonical 
Dictionary ;    same  head. 

12  Matt.  xvi.  19;  xvii.  18;  xxviii.  19,  20.  Mark  xvi.  15. 
Luke  xxiv.  47.    John  xx.  21,  23. 

7 


80  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

He  holds  the  Last  Supper  with  them  and  charges  them 
to  do  the  same  in  His  memory,  upon  them  He  confers 
the  authority  to  bind  and  to  loose,  to  forgive  and  to 
condemn.  Therefore,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
appear  as  separate  from  the  common  people,  that  the 
distinction  between  clericals  and  faithful  appears  well 
defined  and  as  emanating  from  the  Lord.  But,  were 
the  apostles  priests  only,  or  were  they  invested  with 
episcopal  dignity?  If  we  are  guided  by  the  Gospel 
alone,  we  cannot  reach  any  certain  conclusion,  because 
the  word  priest  is  sometimes  taken  as  synonymous 
with  bishop,  and  the  word  bishop  synonymous  with 
priest.13  However,  some  indications  appear  to  demon- 
state  that  they  were  different.  St.  John  writes  to  the 
seven  Churches  of  Asia  Minor.  We  must  for  the 
start  believe  that  there  were  many  priests  and  that 
the  designation  of  the  seven  who  were  at  the  head 
of  each  one  of  those  Churches,  seems  clearly  to 
indicate  that  they  ranked  higher  than  the  other 
priests. 

When  14  the  discussion  about  circumcision  crops  up 
St.  James  appears  to  address  the  priests  as  though  he 
were  a  superior  over  them.  When  St.  Peter  walks 
miraculously  out  of  prison  he  orders  St.  James  to  be 
informed  first  and  the  other  brothers  afterward,  as  if 
St.  James  were  at  the  head  of  them  all.15  St.  James 
decides  as  judge  and  teacher  over  all  outstanding 
questions.     When   St.   Paul  arrives   in  Jerusalem  he 

13  Connect  these  passages  together :  Acts  viii.  29 ;  x.  19 ; 
xi.  12;    viii.  2;    xxv.  28;    xxvi.  6,  7;    xix.  21;    xx.  23. 

"Acts,  chapter  15. 

15  Consult  and  connect  these  passages:  Acts  xiv.  23;  xii.  17; 
xv.  13,  19;    xviii. 


Capitulating  before  protestantism.  8i 

visits  St.  James  first.  St.  Paul  says  that  he  visited 
and  spoke  with  St.  James,  Peter  and  John,  whom  he 
calls  pillars  of  the  Church.10  All  these  indications  ap- 
pear to  demonstrate  that  already  there  existed  from 
the  time  of  the  apostles  a  distinction  between  priests 
and  bishops.  But  that  distinction  is  only  found  well 
marked  at  the  time  immediately  contemporaneous  with 
the  apostles  and  emanating  from  them.17  In  Asia 
Minor  we  can  see  already  how  bishops  supersede  the 
priests  who  are  the  immediate  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles. There  appear  St.  Polycarp,  St.  Papias,  St.  Igna- 
tius, St.  Irenaeus.  In  St.  Ignatius'  epistle,  admitted 
by  many  as  authentic,  the  differences  between  priest 
and  bishop  are  clearly  conspicuous.  The  same  thing 
is  noticeable  in  the  letters  from  Clement  of  Rome, 
and  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  those  authors  can  be 
looked  upon  as  immediate  successors  to  the  apostles, 
especially  St.  John,  to  whom  history  and  tradition 
grant  an  extraordinary  longevity.18  To  this  it  must 
be  added  according  to  the  testimony  of  St.  Polycarp, 
St.  Ignatius,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen  and  Ter- 
tullian,  that  the  constitution  of  the  bishops  was  estab- 
lished by  St.  John  himself. 

As  the  reader  can  satisfy  himself  by  reference  to  the 
biblical  records,  and  the  testimonies  adduced,  the  rea- 
sons put  forward  by  the  Episcopalians  are  very  earnest 
ones  and  if  they  do  not  convey  an  absolute  certainty, 

18  See  Gal.  i.  19;   xi.  9,  12. 

17  See  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  under  head,  Church.  See 
Clement  of  Rome:  Letter  to  the  Corinthians.  Hefele:  St. 
Ignatius'  letter  and  St.  Irenaeus  against  Heresies. 

18  Besides  the  heads  mentioned,  see  Encyclopedia  Britannica, 
under  Episcopate. 


82  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

they  give  rise  to  a  most  firm  probability.19  To  this  may 
be  added  an  endless  number  of  old  and  contemporane- 
ous historical  testimonials  and  the  statements  of  emi- 
nent theologians.  Nevertheless,  we  are  going  to  give 
the  basis  of  the  two  other  theories.  According  to 
the  Baptists,  Christ  did  not  establish  20  any  difference 
either  in  the  ministerial  power  or  jurisdiction.  Christ 
says :  "Let  there  be  among  you  neither  greater  nor 
smaller  than  the  other.  Whoever  claims  to  be  greater 
must  be  the  smaller.  Whoever  leaves  his  all  behind 
and  follows  me,  is  equal  to  the  apostles."  Christ  says 
unequivocally  that  no  one  is  to  be  called  lord,  master 
or  father,  because  He  alone  is  the  only  superior,  mas- 
ter and  father.  He  Himself  21  promises  to  stay  among 
His  faithful  followers  till  the  end  of  time,  and  if  this 
is  so  it  was  no  longer  necessary  to  leave  behind  Him 
any  constituted  authority.  He  offers  that  wherever 
any  two  or  three  of  His  disciples  congregate  He  will 
be  with  them  as  president  or  head.  If  He  presides, 
any  other  dignitary  or  minister  is  superfluous.  A  col- 
lective body  may  appoint  whom  it  deems  suitable  to 
perform  this  office,  and  can  also  withdraw  such  ap- 
pointment.22 (Anyone  desiring  further  information 
may  obtain  the  same  by  referring  to  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica,  under  the  headings  in  the  footnotes.) 

19  Besides  the  works  mentioned,  read  those  of  the  Protest- 
ants Bilson  and  Cotterill.  For  the  Romanists  see  Baronio, 
Rohrbacher,  Hergenrother,  Natal  Alexander  and  Rivas. 

20  Matt.  xx.  26 ;  xxiii.  8,  9.  Mark  ix.  25.  Luke  xxii.  25. 
John  xv.  2. 

21  Matt,  xviii.  20. 

22  Read  the  historians:  Neander,  Rev.  I.  H.  Ross  and  Mr. 
Morrison,  also  Encyclopedia  Britannica :    Under  Baptist. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  83 

The  second  theory  has  to  support  it,  some  serious 
arguments  and  powerful  reasonings.  It  may  at  once 
be  asserted  that  nearly  all  the  reformers  were  parti- 
sans of  this  theory.  So  thought 23  Luther,  and  thus  be- 
lieved Melancthon,  Bugenhagen  and  especially  Calvin. 
They  say,  and  they  are  not  without  reason,  that  as 
many  passages  as  may  be  invoked  in  defense  of  the 
episcopate,  as  coming  from  the  Gospel  and  the  apos- 
tles, just  as  many  can  be  adduced  to  demonstrate  that 
there  are  only  priests.-4  And,  in  effect,  those  writings 
show  the  two  offices  performed  by  priests.  See  the 
same  passages  above  mentioned  and  those  we  are 
adding  here.  Add  also  the  powerful  testimony  of 
St.  Jerome. 

Xo  one  doubts  that  this  learned  author  was  one 
of  the  best  informed  on  ancient  times.  Driven  east- 
ward to  prepare  his  translation  of  the  Bible  and  to 
investigate  every  known  code,  as  well  as  to  interro- 
gate the  most  learned,  his  decisions  may  be  taken  as 
oracles.  That  author  affirms  in  the  most  unquestion- 
able terms  that  between  bishop  and  priest  there  is  no 
distinction  whatever  as  coming  from  the  teachings  of 
Christ  or  His  apostles.  Read  the  letter  mentioned  in 
the  footnotes.25  Resuming,  we  declare  that  our  in- 
clination is  toward  the  episcopal  theory,  but  that  we 
do  not  consider  it  so  certain  as  to  justify  the  rejection 
of  the  others,  especially  the  Presbyterian,20  and  when 

23  Melanchthon's  Writings.     Calvin's  Theology. 
"Connect   the   following  passages:     Acts  viii.   29;    x.    19; 
xi.   12;    viii.  2;    xxv.  28;    xxvi.  6,  7;    xix.  21;  xx.  23. 

25  Collection  of  St.  Jerome's  letters,  No.  146. 

26  See  Encyclopedia  Britannica :  under  Luther,  Priest  and 
Presbyterian,  Calvin. 


84  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

viewed  strictly  by  the  Gospel,  it  appears  that  the 
theory  of  the  Baptist  is  the  most  well-founded.  The 
reader  who  may  feel  interested  in  acquiring  a  more 
exhaustive  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  referred  to  the 
several  authors  mentioned. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

IS  THE  FOURTH   THEORY  ADMISSIBLE,   WHICH  DECLARES 
AN  INFALLIBLE  PAPACY  OVER  THE  EPISCOPATE? 

IN  answer  to  this  question  Romanism  has  three 
groups  of  arguments:  (a)  Biblical  and  socio- 
logical arguments  (theological  reasons)  ;  (b)  Apos- 
tolic and  sub-apostolic  testimonies;  (c)  Arguments 
properly  called  historical.1  We  propose  using  these 
same  three  sources  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating 
that  such  theory  is  purely  an  arbitrary  one.  But  upon 
this  point  more  than  on  any  other  question,  we  would 
beg  our  readers  to  dismiss  all  prejudices,  and  to  be  as 
sincere  and  impartial  as  possible. 

So  weighty  is  this  question  as  to  make  it  worth 
while  for  us  to  concentrate  all  the  energy  of  our  mind, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  it  clear.  The  consequences 
attending  a  solution  one  way  or  the  other,  are  so 
transcendental,  that  nothing  should  be  omitted  from, 
nor  be  added  to,  what  Christ  taught  His  apostles  to 
believe,  on  the  penalty  of  incurring  the  most  horrible 
and  lamentable  results.     Let  us  listen  to  Romanism 

*Jaugey:  heads,  Church  and  Infallibility.  Hettinger: 
Apology  of  Religion ;  Church  and  Pope.  See  also  Cardinal 
Gibbons:  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  referring  to  the  Pri- 
macy and  Infallibility  of  the  Popes.  As  the  reasons  on  which 
Pontifical  Primacy  are  based  are  often  the  same  as  those 
adduced  to  establish  Infallibility,  we  understand  that  after 
the  latter  has  been  refuted,  the  former  meets  the  same  fate: 
for  that  reason  we  say  nothing  on  the  Primacy. 

(85) 


86  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

through  the  mouthpiece  of  H.  E.  Cardinal  Gibbons. 
His  book,  "The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,"  summarizes 
with  a  fair  degree  of  accuracy,  the  arguments  invoked 
by  the  school  he  represents.  We  will  make  only  one 
remark  considered,  if  anything,  favorable  to  that 
authority.  To  devote  two  chapters  in  order  to  demon- 
strate the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  seems  to  us  some- 
what unbecoming  at  this  time,  and  even  liable  to  make 
the  faithful  fall  into  error.  According  to  the  brand- 
new  Roman  theology,  since  there  is  only  one  head, 
there  cannot  be  two  infallibilities,  but  only  an  ex- 
clusive one,  that  of  the  Pope.2  The  manner  of  exposi- 
tion adopted  by  H.  E.  Cardinal  Gibbons  is  rather  of 
the  epoch  preceding  the  Vatican  Council.  The  Fa- 
thers assembled  at 3  Basle  and  Constance  conceived  an 
infallible  Church  and  believed  in  it,  without  making 
any  direct  mention  of  the  Pope's  infallibility.4  Gal- 
licanism,  so  rigorously  condemned  by  the  Vatican, 
thought  and  believed  the  same ;  but  he  who  now- 
adays would  venture  to  uphold  an  infallible  Church, 
and  in  addition  an  infallible  Pope,  would  break  away 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  That  dualism  has 
constantly  been  rejected  by  Romanism.  It  was  after 
the  Vatican  Council  that  the  Pope,  by  his  own  decree,5 
became  the  whole  Church,  sufficient  and  adequate,  and 
the  Church  without  the  Pope,  nothing,  absolutely  noth- 

2  Bertier  :  Compendium  Theologicum  de  Infallibilitate.  Car- 
dinal Vives :  Same  head.  Casanova :  Theologia  Fundamen- 
tal ;   same  h^d. 

3  Seg  canons. of  both  councils  by  Robracher,  Baronio,  Rivas 
and  Afzog. 

4  Gallican  :  Articles  attributed  to  Bossuet.  Declarations  of 
the  Gallican  clergy. 

BJaugey:    heads,  Church  and  Infallibility. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  87 

ing.  There  exists  only  one  infallibility,  that  of  the 
Pope,  and  from  him  it  is  communicated  to  others;  the 
episcopate,  considered  collectively,  is  also  infallible 
in  so  far  as  it  shares  the  pope's  infallibility  by  teaching 
its  doctrine  and  assenting  to  it.  Let  His  Eminence 
read  the  beautiful  encyclical  of  Leo  XIII  on  the  unity 
of  the  Church.0  I  call  it  beautiful  because  the  style 
could  not  be  more  elegant  nor  the  Latin  more  classical. 
Would  His  Eminence  have  another  irrefutable  testi- 
monial that  infallibility  is  a  thing  of  the  past,  if  not 
taken  as  the  papal  infallibility?  Here  it  is:  the  first 
pope  to  enjoy  infallibility  as  an  obligatory  dogma 
furnishes  the  clearest  and  most  complete  one.  The 
Vatican  Council  was  ecumenical,  was  it  not?  In  it 
was  represented  the  whole  Church.  Is  not  that  so? 
Well,  then,  please  read  Pius  IX's  bull  herein  trans- 
lated but  reproduced  in  the  appendix  in  Latin.7  "If 
I  should  die  during  the  celebration  of  the  Council, 
let  the  Council  be  adjourned  at  the  very  moment  of 
my  death,  let  all  discussion  be  suspended,  let  nothing 
be  done,  nothing  be  resolved;  and  from  now,  if  such 
an  event  should  occur  (my  death)  by  these  presents 
I  adjourn  the  Council.  Only  after  a  successor  has 
been  elected  and  he  deems  it  proper,  shall  the  fathers 
composing  the  Council  resume  its  labors."  The  text, 
as  Your  Eminence  can  see,  is  still  more  energetic  and 
ample.  And  in  order  that  no  one  should  believe  that 
such  an  act  referred  to  that  Council  only,  the  Pope 
ordered  that  the  same  8  be  observed  always  and  in  per- 

"Leo   XIII:     Encyclical;       De    Unitate    Ecclesiae    (Of   the 
Unity  of  the  Church). 

7  Pius  IX  :    Encyclical  to  the  fathers  of  the  Vatican  Council. 

8  Same  Pius  IX  :    Encyclical. 


88  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

petuity.  Now,  that  was  a  legitimate  and  ecumenical 
Council,  that  is  to  say  all  the  Church.  In  case  of  death 
it  was  not  to  be  said  that  the  Council  parted  from 
the  Pope,  nor  that  it  got  away  from  its  spirit  and  in- 
structions, for  notwithstanding,  as  Your  Eminence  sees, 
it  leaves  the  whole  Church,  although  legitimately  as- 
sembled, entirely  incapacitated  to  resolve  anything 
whatsoever,  absolutely  nothing,9  however  weighty  or 
urgent  the  case  might  be.  There  is,  consequently  only 
one  sole  infallibility,  the  single  and  exclusive  one  of 
the  Pope.  If  Your  Eminence  is  not  convinced,  there 
is  another  obvious  and  very  rapid  way  to  proceed. 
Address  to  Your  Eminence's  colleagues,  the  cardinals, 
the  following  question :  Besides  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  can  the  Church  be  considered  as  infallible? 
Your  reputation  and  good  name  being  well  known  in 
Rome,  and  your  brothers  of  the  hat  being  most  at- 
tentive to  their  confreres,  they  might  even  answer  by 
telegraph.  It  may  be  safely  wagered,  however,  that 
they  will  not  reply  in  the  sense  in  which  infallibility 
appears  explained  in  Your  Eminence's  book.  But  if 
you  say  that  in  speaking  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church  you  mean  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
then  one  of  the  two  chapters  would  be  superfluous, 
and  Your  Eminence  would  commit  a  redundancy  that 
might  occasion  lamentable  misunderstandings,  for 
some  might  believe  that  beside  an  infallible  Pope  there 
is  also  an  infallible  Church.  We  have  ventured  on 
this  remark  not  only  because  we  think  it  necessary, 
but  also  because  it  is  essential  to  prosecute  the  discus- 
sion within  definite  limits.    When  we  say  that  we  con- 

9  Same  Pius  IX:    Encyclical, 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  89 

sider  the  papal  infallibility  as  arbitrary  and  mislead- 
ing we  refer  exclusively*  to  the  Pontiff's  own  person- 
ality, and  in  no  manner  whatever  to  the  Church,  con- 
sidered as  an  universal  collectivity.  Whether  the 
Church  is  or  is  not  infallible,  we  neither  admit  nor 
reject  in  this  work:  what  we  do  reject  and  do  not 
admit  is  the  individual  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  Syn- 
thetically, these  are  the  arguments  adduced  by  Roman- 
ism : 10 

Matthew  xvi.  16,  17,  18: 

"And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God. 

"And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Blessed 
art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona:  for  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven. 

"And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 

Luke  xxii.  31,  32 : 

"And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan 
hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as 
wheat : 

"But  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not : 
and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren." 

John  xxi.  15,  16,  17: 

"So  when  they  had  dined  Jesus  saith  to  Simon 
Peter,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  more  than 
these  ?  He  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord ;  thou  knowest 
that  I  love  thee.     He  saith  unto  him,  Feed  my  lambs. 

10  See  Cardinal  Gibbons :  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  re- 
ferring to  Primacy  and  Infallibility  of  Peter  and  the  Popes. 


90  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

''He  saith  to  him  again  the  second  time,  Simon,  son 
of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me?  He  saith  unto  him,  Yea, 
Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He  saith  unto 
him,  Feed  my  lambs. 

"He  saith  unto  him  the  third  time,  Simon,  son  of 
Jonas,  lovest  thou  me?  Peter  was  grieved  because 
he  said  to  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou  me?  And 
he  said  unto  him,  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things ;  thou 
knowest  that  I  love  thee.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feed 
my  sheep." 

Let  us  examine  each  and  every  one  of  the  argu- 
ments. In  the  first,  a  most  energetic  one,  it  is  most 
noticeable  that  although  all  the  evangelists  quote  the 
same  passage,  one  only,  namely,  St.  Matthew's,  adds 
the  statement  mentioned.11  Connecting  the  Gospels 
together  it  may  be  deduced  as  a  general  rule,  that  the 
necessary  and  fundamental  portions  are  not  only  re- 
produced by  all  the  evangelists,  but  that  at  times  such 
portions  are  repeated  in  the  same  Gospel.  See  for 
instance:  The  Eucharist,  the  command  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  the  powers  granted  to  the  apostles ;  baptism ; 
the  precept  on  charity;  the  divinity  of  Christ.  It  may 
at  once  be  asserted,  that  in  all  things  fundamental  to 
the  organization  of  the  Church,  we  shall  find  all  the 
evangelists  as  one,  and  we  shall  find  many  passages 
on  the  Divine  Word  repeated.12     However,  dealing  as 

11  Compare  Matt.  xvi.  16  and  following,  with  Mark  vii.  29 
and  following,  and  Luke  ix.  20  and  following,  and  John  vi.  69 
and  xi.  27  and  following,  with  Matt,  xvi,  before  mentioned. 

12  Read  the  four  Gospels,  looking  up  in  them  any  of  the 
points  mentioned,  and  the  truth  of  what  we  affirm  will  become 
evident.  For  instance :  On  the  Eucharist :  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  27. 
Mark  xxv.  22  and  following.  Luke  xxii.  19  and  following. 
John  vi.  51.    I  Cor.  xi.  23,  24,  25.    On  The  Preaching  of  the 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  9I 

we  are  doing  here  with  this  most  important  dogma 
of  the  organization  of  the  Church,  it  is  truly  surpris- 
ing to  find  only  one  evangelist  making  reference  to  so 
great  a  doctrine,  and  that  he  should  be,  not  Mark,  who 
writes  in  association  with  St.  Peter,  but  Matthew. 
And  the  surprise  increases  still  more,  when  we  con- 
sider that  all  of  them  relate  the  dialogue  between  Jesus 
and  Peter.  In  all  of  them  Christ  inquires  concerning 
the  mission  that  the  people  attribute  to  Him ;  in  all  of 
them  Christ  questions  His  apostles  as  to  what  they 
think  of  Him,  and  in  all  of  them  Peter  answers: 
"Thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  And  while  three  evan- 
gelists conclude  the  passage  without  adding  anything 
more,  one  only  proclaims  the  most  important  of  the 
dogmas.13  Anyone  who  reads  the  Gospels  carefully 
and  connects  and  compares  the  substantial  portions 
of  them,  must  see  in  this  exception  an  inexplicable 
anomaly.14  It  is  not  surprising  that  some  commenta- 
tors notwithstanding  their  faith  in  the  infallibility  and 
inspiration  of  the  Bible,  believe  that  there  has  been  some 
subsequent  interpolation  here.15  We  do  not  venture 
so  far  and  would  rather  admit  the  authenticity  of  the 
passage;  but  the  fact  that  only  one  evangelist  repro- 
duces it  leads  us  to  believe  that  it  is  not  worthy  of 
the  great  significance  attached  to  it  by  Romanism,  for 
if  it  had  such  importance,  it  seems  that  all  the  evan- 

Gospel:  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Mark  xvi.  15.  Luke  xxiv.  47. 
On  Baptism :  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Mark  xvi.  16.  John  iii.  18,  36. 
Acts  ii.  38.  On  Charity :  John  xiii.  34.  Matt.  xxii.  37,  38,  39. 
Luke  x.  27.     Mark  xii.  35. 

13  Read  the  four  Gospels  in  the  places  named. 

14  Make  a  test  by  reading  and  connecting  the  Gospels  in  any 
important  matter. 

15  See  Encyclopedia  Britannica :    Heads,  Church  and  Papacy. 


92  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

gelists  should  mention  it,  as  they  do  the  other  dogmas 
and  things  fundamental.  Let  us  analyze  the  text: 
Christ  calls  Peter  blessed,  because  he  confesses  His 
divinity,  and  that  only  the  Eternal  Father  would  have 
inspired  that  confession  in  him,  and  as  a  consequence 
of  such  a  profession  of  faith,  Christ  offers  to  estab- 
lish His  Church  upon  Peter  (synonym  of  stone)  and 
adds,  besides,  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  One  cannot  believe  that  anyone  would 
interpret  these  words  so  materially  as  to  suppose  that 
Christ  promises  to  establish  His  Church  upon  the 
Apostle  Peter,  as  an  ordinary  individual  like  anyone 
else,  but  in  whom  He  has  discovered  something  super- 
natural and  divine.  If  this  is  not  so  the  passage  has 
no  meaning.  It  is  necessary  to  connect  Peter's  con- 
fession with  the  subsequent  promise  made  by  Christ. 
The  latter  is  the  result  of  the  former,  and  that  is  the 
basis  of  this.  The  meaning  appears,  therefore,  to  be 
as  follows :  "Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  son  of  Jonah, 
because  the  flesh  and  the  blood  did  not  reveal  to  thee 
that  I  am  the  son  of  God,  but  my  heavenly  Father, 
and  to  thee  I  say  that  because  thou  art  believing  in 
that  truth  thou  art  a  hard  rock,  and  upon  it  I  will 
establish  my  Church."  Which  would  be  clearly  equiv- 
alent to  meaning  that  Christ  promises  that  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  He  shall  raise  His  Church  is  the 
explicit  confession  to  His  (Christ's)  divinity.16  He 
does  not  refer  to  anyone  personally,  only  that  Peter's 
confession  gives  Him  an  opportunity  to  expound  the 
foundations  on  which  He  will  cement  His  Church, 
and  the  reward  He  wishes  to  grant  to  His  believers. 

16  Matt.  xvi.  17  and  following. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  93 

This  distinction  can  be  seen  much  more  clearly  if  we 
pay  attention  to  the  words  that  follow.  From  them 
Peter's  personality  disappears  altogether  and  is  sub- 
stituted by  the  Church.  Christ  promises  indefectibility 
not  to  the  person  of  Peter,  but  to  His  Church.17  The 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  the  Church,  not 
against  Peter.  Therefore,  concerning  the  personal 
infallibility  of  the  Pope,  far  from  establishing  it,  this 
text  shows  that  the  usurpation  of  it  by  the  popes,  as 
a  private  and  exclusive  attribute,  is  arbitrary  and 
absurd.  That  the  Church  does  not  and  cannot  possess 
it,  according  to  the  Papacy,  is  clearly  affirmed  by 
Pius  IX  in  the  letters  quoted  above,  because,  if  the 
Church  assembled  in  General  Council  could  be  infal- 
lible, why  render  it  unfit  to  discuss,  resolve  and  de- 
cide? Let,  then,  this  text  be  carefully  examined,  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  He  says  nothing  about  the  per- 
sonal infallibility  of  the  Pontiff,  and  that  the  only 
thing  He  affirms  is  that  His  Church,  not  the  Pope, 
shall  be:  that  is  to  say,  that  Christ  granting  infalli- 
bility to  the  Church,  and  Pius  IX  wresting  it  from 
the  Church  in  order  to  concentrate  it  in  the  hands 
of  the  Papacy,  are  in  flagrant  contradiction.  Another 
interpretation  can  still  be  given  which  is  attributed  to 
Origen.18  It  is  not  easy  to  explain  how  Christ  could 
establish  His  Church  on  any  one  person  but  His 
own,  on  His  own  omnipotence  and  unfailing  divinity. 
Now,  when  for  the  first  time  and  most  energetically, 
Peter  acknowledges  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  latter 

"Same:    Chap.  xvi.  17,  18. 

18  See    the    work    entitled    Extract    from    the    Doctrine    of 
Origen  and  Tertullian,  by  a  Franciscan  Father. 


94  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

avails  himself  of  the  occasion  to  disclose  his  doctrine. 
According  to  this  theory  the  meaning  would  be :  Thou 
art  stone  and  I,  Christ,  also,  and  upon  my  divinity  I 
will  establish  my  Church.  At  first  sight  this  inter- 
pretation seems  strained,  but  when  properly  analyzed 
it  will  be  found  to  be  the  most  correct,  since  it  is  the 
most  grammatical,  and  when  it  becomes  necessary  to 
deduce  a  probative  argument,  one  has  not  to  seek  the 
mystic  nor  the  accommodating  sense,  which  of  them- 
selves, prove  nothing,  but  confine  the  question,  as  far 
as  possible,  within  the  grammatical  and  the  literal  sense. 
According  to  syntax,  if  Peter  were  the  stone  upon 
which  Christ  intended  to  build  His  Church,  He  should 
have  said :  upon  that  stone,  and  not,  upon  this  stone}9 
The  word  "this"  can  only  be  applied  in  correct  syntax 
as  referring  to  Christ  himself.  The  meaning,  there- 
fore, would  be:  Thou  art  a  stone  and  I  (Christ)  am 
also  a  stone  and  upon  this  (Christ  pointing  to  himself) 
I  will  build  my  Church.  In  this  manner  only  can  be 
properly  explained  the  use  of  the  pronoun  this  and 
not  of  the  pronoun  that  which  is  the  corresponding 
one,  if  the  foundation  stone  of  the  Church  were  Peter 
and  not  Christ.20  Read  the  Vulgata  Latina,  the  only 
one  authentically  approved  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
and  in  which  will  be  found  a  more  exhaustive  treat- 
ment of  this  question.  The  following  additional  con- 
sideration is  well  worthy  of  notice.  While  the  apos- 
tles do  not  draw  any  inference  from  the  nickname 
"Stone"  attributed  to  Peter,  and  one  would  think  they 
would  have  done   so,   if  it   had  the  meaning  subse- 

18  See  Matt.,  chapter  and  verse  already  mentioned. 

20  See  the  same  chapter  and  verse  of  the  Vulgata  Latina. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  95 

quently  put  upon  it  by  Romanism,  yet  from  the  date 
of  that  dialogue,  there  has  existed  a  kind  of  unwhole- 
some desire  to  call  Christ  the  foundation  stone,21  the 
angular  stone,  the  corner  stone,  the  stone  of  contradic- 
tion, the  smashing  stone.  All  this  seems  to  lead  those 
who  sincerely  search  for  the  truth  to  believe  that  so 
much  eagerness  to  dub  Christ  in  so  many  ways  as  a 
stone  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  that  most  important 
passage  Jesus  referred  to  Himself  and  not  to  Peter. 
It  is  worth  while  to  take  into  account  an  interpretation 
backed  not  only  by  exact  construction,  but  also  cor- 
roborated by  the  oft-repeated  language  and  symbol- 
ism of  the  apostles.  But  it  is  useless  to  longer  dwell 
on  this  point  since  it  is  as  clear  as  noonday  that  Christ 
does  not  refer  in  any  way  to  the  person  of  Peter,  but 
to  His  Church.22  The  last  words  spoken  by  Christ  to 
Peter  namely:  "To  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  and  everything  thou  dost  bind," 
etc.,  have  no  probative  force  whatever  because  "quod 
nimis  probat  nihil  probat"  (too  much  proof  proves 
nothing)  is  true  according  to  Roman  philosophy. 
Christ  says  those  same  words,  with  the  same  fullness 
of  meaning,  to  the  other  apostles :  therefore,  if  they  do 
not  prove  in  the  apostles  that  Christ  grants  to  them  an 
infallibility  transferable  to  others,  they  must  not  prove 
either  that  He  granted  it  to  Peter ;  and  if  on  the  con- 
trary they  should  prove  it,  good-bye  to  papal  infalli- 
bility. Perhaps,  we  will  be  told  there  is  something 
He  grants  to  Peter  that  He  does  not  give  to  the  others : 

n  Matt.  xxi.  42,  44.    Mark  xii.  10.    Luke  xx.  17.    Acts  iv.  11. 
Eph.  ii.  20.    I  Peter  ii.  6,  7. 
"  Sec  Matt.  xvi.  17,  18,  19. 
8 


g6  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

yes,  the  keys!23  Cardinal  Gibbons  furnishes  the  an- 
swer. The  keys,  says  he,  are  a  symbol  of  authority, 
they  are  a  testimony  that  the  authority  given  is  most 
ample.  Therefore,  if  speaking  of  Peter  he  means 
the  symbol  and  the  thing  symbolized,  and  if  when 
speaking  of  the  apostles  He  grants  the  thing  symbol- 
ized without  the  symbol,  He  neither  takes  away  from 
the  other  apostles,  nor  does  He  add  anything  to  Peter, 
for  the  symbol  by  itself  is  nothing,  it  is  the  thing  sym- 
bolized that  is  effective.  (St.  Matthew,  chapter  xviii. 
1 8.)  Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  Peter  alone  is  spoken  of 
in  this  case  and  not  the  others.  The  same  passage 
answers  itself  because  Peter  was  the  only  one  on  that 
occasion  to  acknowledge  the  divinity  of  Christ.24  If 
under  those  circumstances  Christ  had  intended  to  re- 
fer to  all,  Pie  would  not  have  mentioned  anything 
about  a  corresponding  reward,  such  as  He  wants  to 
make  evident  in  this  case.  Thou  art  the  first  to 
acknowledge  me  as  the  son  of  God,  to  thee  first  I 
grant  that  which  in  the  same  manner  and  on  diverse 
occasions  I  will  grant  to  the  others.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  dangerous  to  strain  individual  indications. 
Following  that  theory  we  should  find  in  the  same 
chapter  that  Peter  is  the  worst  among  the  apostles, 
and  comparable  to  Satan.  Follow  the  maxim  wisely 
set  by  scholasticism  that  "quod  nimis  probat  nihil 
probat"  (too  much  proof  proves  nothing)  and  we 
shall  then  be  able  to  coordinate  individual  exclusiv- 
isms  that  otherwise  would  create  fatal  errors25 

23  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons  :  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers ;  chap- 
ter on  Primacy  and  Infallibility  of  the  Pope. 
"Read  Matt.  xvi.  13-19. 
25  See  Peru  jo's  Dictionary,  ecclesiastical  terms  and  phrases. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  97 

Let  us,  then,  discard  the  first  text  as  a  contradiction 
of  proof  of  the  papal  infallibility,  and  see  it  rather  as 
a  great  obstacle  than  a  firm  support.  That  was  clearly- 
seen  by  the  Vatican  Council 2(i  which  attempted  prin- 
cipally to  establish  the  pontifical  infallibility  in  an- 
other text  by  the  words  spoken  by  Christ:  "Simon, 
Simon,  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may 
sift  you  as  wheat :  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy 
faith  fail  not :  and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen 
thy  brethren."  What  a  poor  opinion  must  anyone  form 
of  certain  personalities,  who  examines  this  passage 
with  greater  fear  of  error  than  of  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sure; with  the  irrevocable  longing  to  proclaim  the 
truth,  rather  than  flatter  somebody,  be  that  somebody 
the  chief  Pontiff !  To  invoke  this  text  for  the  purpose 
of  laying  the  whole  foundation  of  the  papal  building, 
seems  to  us  the  grossest  absurdity  and  the  most  fla- 
grant contradiction.  The  papal  infallibility  is  a  nega- 
tive and  external  prerogative,  not  an  internal  and  posi- 
tive one ;  it  means  only  that  while  the  Pope  teaches  the 
world  as  a  universal  doctor,  he  cannot  communicate  27 
error.  This  is  so  much  so  that  the  majority  of  theolo- 
gians 28  suppose  that  infallibility  may  be  compatible 
with  an  internal  infidelity  of  the  Pope;  that  is  to  say, 
a  Pope  may  be  an  occult  heretic  and  yet  continue  be- 
ing Pope  and  infallible,  since  that  is  an  outward  privi- 
lege and  one  beneficial  to  the  Church:  consequently, 

26  See  Vatican  Council:   De  Fide  (Faith). 

27Jaugey:  Heads,  Infallibility,  Pope.  Cardinal  Gibbons: 
Book  mentioned,  chapter  referring  to  Infallibility  of  the  Pope. 

88  St.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio:  Theologicals,  chapter  the 
Pope.  Apologetic  Dictionary  of  Faith,  under  heads  already 
mentioned. 


98  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

infallibility  is  incompatible  with  an  external  loss  of 
faith.  Outwardly,  the  Pope  cannot  teach  error.  Now, 
can  that  passage  mean  such  a  thing?  When  does 
Christ  utter  those  words  ? 20  Doubtless  long  before 
His  most  cruel  Passion.  Did  Christ  then,  promise  to 
Peter  that  external  faith  should  not  fail  him?  In  that 
case  His  promise  proved  false,  for  did  not  Peter  deny 
Christ?  and  was  not  his  denial  an  act  of  infidelity? 
It  does  not  avail  to  say  that  internally  he  continued 
to  believe,  because  this  only  entangles  and  complicates 
the  question  for  the  Romanists  themselves. 

Have  we  not  agreed  that  infallibility  is  external 
and  not  internal?  Do  you  not  affirm  that  the  Pope 
can  break  faith  internally  but  not  externally?  Do 
you  not  say  Christ  granted  to  Peter  that  external  pre- 
rogative when  He  uttered  those  words?  Therefore, 
one  of  three  things  must  be  evident :  either  this  state- 
ment was  made  after  the  Passion,  which  amounts  to 
contradicting  the  evangelists,  who  distinctly  claim 
the  contrary ;  or  Christ  made  a  mistake,  which  is  blas- 
phemous ;  or  those  words  must  have  another  meaning. 
This  is  an  example  of  the  inexplicable  proceedings 
of  the  Romanists  to  get  into  the  good  graces  of  their 
papal  idol,  by  whom  they  seem  to  be  possessed:  they 
do  not  hesitate  to  make  Christ  contradict  Himself.  To 
deny  that  Peter  was  unfaithful  to  Christ  would  be 
heresy ;  to  affirm  that  Christ  made  a  promise  to  Peter 
that  He  did  not  keep  would  be  blasphemous;  there- 
fore, no  room  is  left  for  any  other  meaning,  than  the 
literal  and  obvious  one,  but  not  the  contradictory  and 

39  See  Luke  xxii.  31  and  following. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  99 

arbitrary  one  of  the  Romanists.30  Christ  foresaw 
Judas'  apostasy,  Peter's  denial  and  the  other  apostles' 
scandals ;  He  saw  Judas  horror-stricken  at  his  crime, 
dying  in  despair,  and  Satan  trying  to  plunge  Peter 
into  the  same  abyss  and  to  confuse  the  other  apostles ; 
but  Christ  prays  for  Peter  and  succeeds  in  saving  him 
from  utter  loss  that  he  may  repent  and  live ;  and  as  he 
better  than  anyone  else  was  to  feel  the  truth  of  His 
prophecy,  and  the  sweetness  of  His  mercy,  recommends 
him  to  strengthen  the  others.  Let  us  translate  the 
passage  on  antecedents  and  consequents :  ''Peter,  Peter, 
Satan  hath  desired  to  have  thee,  that  he  may  sift  you 
as  wheat;  he  has  succeeded  with  Judas  and  thou  hast 
run  great  danger,  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee  and 
although  thou  wilt  be  unfaithful  to  me,  thou  shalt 
not  be  altogether  lost,  but  shall  become  converted  and 
do  penance  for  thy  sin ;  when  this  happens  thou  better 
than  anyone  else  shalt  feel  that  what  I  am  saying 
is  the  truth;  for  my  prophecy  shall  be  accomplished 
in  thee;  endeavor  to  strengthen  the  others  that  walk 
astray  and  hesitate."  What  is  there  in  this  translation 
not  clear,  well  established  and  in  harmony  with  the 
literal  sense,  given  the  antecedents  and  consequents? 
Therefore,  why  throw  doubt  upon  the  infallibility  of 
Christ's  promise  if  not  to  infer  as  a  consequence  the 
personal  one  of  the  Pope?  The  second  argument  is 
thus  thrown  out  of  the  discussion,  because  to  interpret 
it  as  the  Romanists  do,  would  be  heresy  or  blasphemy. 
That  which  "nimis  probat  nihil  probat"  proves,  then, 

80  Read  the  Gospels,  chapters  referring  to  the  Passion,  and 
connect  them  with  each  other.  See  also  John  xvii.  9  and  fol- 
lowing, and  it  will  be  seen  how  He  prays  in  a  similar  manner 
for  all  His  apostles  and  disciples. 


IOO  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

nothing  as  to  personal  infallibility.  We  will  now  ex- 
amine the  third  and  last  biblical  text.  Christ  after  His 
resurrection  in  conversing  with  Peter  and  the  apostles, 
spoke  in  this  manner:  "Simon,  lovest  thou  me?"  etc. 
Says  Romanism:  Here  Christ  by  recommending  to 
Peter  to  tend  His  lambs  and  His  sheep,  places  faith- 
ful and  bishops  under  his  pastoral  jurisdiction.  The 
former  are  represented  by  the  lambs,  and  the  latter  by 
the  sheep.31  It  is  probable  that  Cardinal  Gibbons  has 
net  forgotten  that  the  mystic  meaning  is  an  excellent 
one  to  edify  the  faithful,  an  admirable  one  to  display 
oratorical  talent,  and  to  write  brilliant  discourses,  but 
extremely  poor  and  insufficient  for  the  deduction  of 
demonstrative  argument.32  Only  in  case  another  in- 
spired writer  deduces  and  determines  the  same,  can 
the  mystic  types  have  any  demonstrative  efficacy.  And 
where  has  Cardinal  Gibbons  discovered  that  by  lamb 
is  to  be  understood  the  merely  faithful,  and  by  sheep 
the  bishop?  In  which  passage  of  the  Gospel  does  he 
find  the  classification  and  separation  of  those  types? 
Which  apostle  determined  it  in  his  writings  ?  Let  him 
not  say  to  us  that  that  is  so  understood  by  the  Roman 
Church,  because  such  an  answer  to  us  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  saying  nothing.  That  would  be  begging  the 
question  which  we  are  not  disposed  to  admit.  We 
need  an  inspired  passage,  some  authentic  testimony.33 
That  Christ  may  be  called  shepherd  and  His  Church  a 

31  See  Vigouroux :  Biblical  Manual,  Rules  of  Exegesis.  Pat- 
rizi,  Schouppe:  same  head.  Comely:  Biblical  Meanings. 
Lobera :    same  head. 

32  Add  to  the  authors  named  the  Apologetic  Dictionary  of 
Faith,  under  head,  Exegesis. 

33  John  x.  14. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  IOI 

sheepfold,  we  do  find  in  St.  John.  But  that  for  lamb 
must  be  understood  the  merely  faithful,  and  by  sheep 
the  bishops,  we  have  not  found  anywhere.  What  we 
have  found  in  St.  John  is  that  sheep  is  synonym  with 
the  merely  faithful.34  "I  have  other  sheep  that  it  is 
necessary  to  bring  to  the  fold."  Here  Christ  speaks 
of  the  faithful  in  general,  and  let  not  Cardinal  Gib- 
bons forget  it — He  calls  them  sheep.35  The  shepherd 
that  tends  one  hundred  sheep  and  loses  one  leaves  the 
ninety-nine  behind  and  goes  in  search  of  the  stray 
one.  Here  He  speaks  of  the  sinner  in  general  and  also 
calls  him  sheep.  Where,  then,  is  the  passage  in  which 
he  says  that  by  sheep  must  be  understood  bishop,  and 
not  the  merely  faithful?  Wherefore  seek  for  ab- 
struse meanings,  when  the  literal  translation  is  so 
clear  and  so  evident?  Thou  lovest  me,  Peter,  there- 
fore preach  my  gospel,  convert  the  people  and  by  that 
means  show  me  thy  love.  Thou  thinkest  to  love  me 
more  than  the  others,  preach  then  more  than  they 
do,  for  love  is  in  the  deeds,  not  in  good  words. 
But  it  may  be  asked,  Why  that  preference  in  ad- 
dressing Peter  and  not  the  others?  Because  Peter 
by  his  impulsiveness,  by  his  years,  appears  perhaps 
more  conspicuous.  That  may  also  be  the  reason  why 
Christ's  reproaches  are  addressed  to  him.88  If  the 
second  circumstance  demonstrates  nothing  against  him, 
neither  does  the  first  prove  anything  in  his  favor. 
None  of  the  three  biblical  arguments  bears  out  the 
claims  of  Romanism :  the  first  because  it  refers  to  its 

3*  John  x.  1 6. 

88  Matt.  xvii.  12.    See  also  Matt.  x.  6  and  xv.  24. 

"Matt.  xvi.  23. 


102  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Church  and  not  to  Peter;  the  second  because  it  is 
based  on  a  false  supposition,  the  third  because  it  is  an 
allegory  that  demonstrates  nothing.  Your  Eminence 
can  see  that  the  free  interpretation  of  the  Bible  is 
good  for  something.  It  serves  at  least  to  undermine 
and  to  demolish  the  shaky  foundations  on  which  it  is 
sought  to  implant  that  of  the  Vatican.  Against  the 
doctrine  of  the  despots  of  old,  there  was  only  one  set- 
back, revolution;  against  Roman  despotism  there  is 
only  one  barricade,  namely:  Biblical  revolution,  free 
interpretation  of  the  Divine  Word  assisted  by  the  help 
of  Christ  so  many  times  promised  to  the  faithful 
until  the  end  of  time.37  This  is  the  last  means  left  to 
save  religion.  That  centralism  proclaimed  by  Your 
Eminence  as  a  divine  panacea,  as  an  unequivocal  proof 
of  life  and  progress,  is  looked  upon  (and  an  effort 
made  to  demonstrate  it  in  another  chapter)  as  an  in- 
dubitable sign  of  ruin,  as  a  sure  mark  of  approaching 
death.  As  a  rule,  centralization  and  tyranny  are  the 
last  conclusions  of  decayed  and  senile  power.  Well 
understood  liberty  and  independence  are,  according  to 
reason,  the  dawn  of  all  progressive  and  lasting  civiliza- 
tion. 

Let  us  look  into  the  sociologic  theological  argu- 
ments :  These  may  be  considered  as  Cardinal  Gibbons' 
favorite  themes.38  If  we  are  not  mistaken  in  our 
reckonings,  he  has  thrice  adduced  the  same  argument 
on  the  necessity  of  a  central  power,  of  a  supreme 
authority,   final,   similar  to   any   human   assembly   or 

37  See  Matt.,  last  chapter  and  last  verse.  Read  also  Matt, 
vii.  7,  8;  xxi.  22.  Mark  xi.  24.  Luke  xi.  9,  10.  John  xiv. 
13,  14.    James  i.  5,  6. 

38  Cardinal  Gibbons:    Chapter  already  mentioned. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  IO3 

government.  This  argument  is  unquestionably  sensa- 
tional, of  a  kind  to  appeal  to  the  irreverent  masses ; 
and  forsooth  to  the  literary  classes  as  well,  if  they, 
should  not  possess  a  deep  philosophical  and  theological 
foundation.  On  the  other  hand  this  argument  boasts 
the  glorification  of  a  most  astounding  success.39  At 
the  last  lamentable  sitting  preceding  the  vote  on  in- 
fallibility, the  last  speaker  was  the  then  Bishop  of 
Cuenca,  H.  E.  Sr.  Paya,  and  his  most  eloquent  dis- 
course is  precisely  based  on  variations  upon  the  same 
theme  that  Cardinal  Gibbons  so  much  likes  to  handle. 
If  he  should  publish  another  edition  of  his  popular 
book,  we  would  recommend  it  to  His  Eminence.40  The 
most  trustworthy  chroniclers  of  Romanism  say,  that  it 
called  for  embracements  and  even  kisses  from  the 
Pontiff.  History  adds  that  he  passed  from  Cuenca, 
one  of  the  poorest  and  smallest  dioceses  in  Spain,  to 
the  vast  and  prosperous  Santiago,  in  Galicia,  where 
later  he  received  the  capels,  and  died  as  Primate  of 
Spain.  I  might  say  as  much  of  the  famous  and  im- 
mortal Dupanloup,  and  many  more  things  concerning 
the  impartiality  and  liberty  in  which  Romanism  left  its 
defenders  and  accusers.  But  let  us  not  touch  super- 
ficially on  a  subject  to  which  we  intend  devoting  an 
entire  chapter.  What  we  wish  to  assert  at  this  time, 
is  that  the  testimonies  before  mentioned  are  taken 
from  the  rabid  Romanist,  the  indefatigable  controvert  - 
ist,  the  lasher  of  liberals  and  Protestants  in  Spain,  the 
illustrious  priest,   Mateos   Gagos,   on   whom   we   rely 

30  Read  Address  of  H.  E.  Sr.  Paya :    On  Infallibility. 
40  Read  Father  Mateos   Gagos :    Chronicle  of  the  Vatican 
Council. 


104  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

principally  for  our  history  of  that  eventful  and  turbu- 
lent council.  Listen,  Cardinal  Gibbons !  he  appears  to 
say :  Why  do  you  wonder  at  the  central  power  of  the 
Vatican?41  Why  are  you  smitten  with  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pontiff?  Have  you  not  a  president  in 
every  republic?  Have  you  not  a  king  in  every  mon- 
archy? Have  you  not  in  every  well  organized  gov- 
ernment, supreme  courts,  whose  decisions  are  final? 
Why  then  refuse  to  the  Church,  that  is  a  most  per- 
fect social  organization,  what  other  societies  possess, 
whatever  their  degree  of  imperfection  might  be  ?  Let 
us  proceed  slowly,  as  the  scholastic  would  say. 

Your  Eminence  will  permit  me  to  state  that  in  good 
exegesis,  allegorical  argument  demonstrates  nothing 
trustworthy ;  42  in  good  philosophy  and  sound  theology, 
arguments  of  similitude  and  analogy  throw  light  upon, 
illustrate  and  corroborate  what  has  already  been 
proved,  but  do  not  demonstrate  what  has  to  be  proved. 
By  whose  authority  does  Your  Eminence  deduce,  that 
because  civil  governments  have  central  powers  and 
supreme  courts,  the  Catholic  Church  should  also  pos- 
sess them?  Have  you  received  some  inspiration  or 
mandate  from  heaven  to  make  such  a  proclamation? 
If  the  Baptists,  taking  the  Gospel  as  their  standpoint, 
would  reply :  Jesus  Christ  knew  the  Roman  organi- 
zation and  the  Hebrew  organization;  He  knew  that 
the  empire  and  the  synagogue  had  supreme  courts, 
and  yet  when  He  speaks  to  His  apostles  of  the  organi- 

41  See  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Chapter  mentioned. 

42  See  Melchor  Cano :  Lugares  Teologicos  (Theological 
Places).  See  Casanova:  Teologia  Fundamental,  Introduc- 
cion  (Fundamental  Theology);  Jaugey:  Apologetic  Diction- 
ary of  Faith ;    head,  Proof, 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  105 

zation  of  His  Church  He  says  to  them : 43  "Beware 
of  the  leaven  of  the  Roman  and  of  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisee,  your  society  must  be  different;  in  the  im- 
perial, and  the  synagogical,  there  are  haughty  persons 
and  masters,  in  mine  I  do  not  wish  for  any  such."  4* 
If  the  Baptists  argued  thus,  I  say,  what  answer  could 
be  made  to  them?  For  their  argument  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  biblical,  while  Your  Eminence  has 
the  disadvantage  of  being  antibiblical. 

But  let  us  gratuitously  assume  that  the  comparison 
is  good,  that  the  Church  is  a  society  identical  with  the 
civil  society,  and  that  since  the  latter  has  a  central 
authority,  the  former  must  also  have  one,  and  that  if 
the  latter  has  supreme  and  final  courts,  the  former 
must  also  have  them.  Should  we  then  have  advanced 
anything  towards  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  Pope? 
Alas!  Cardinal  Gibbons!  must  we  forget  the  logic 
which  we  learned  in  our  school  days  ? 45  One  of  the 
most  important  rules  of  syllogism,  is  that  the  con- 
clusion must  never  be  greater  than  the  premises.  The 
only  possible  consequence  would  be  this:  that  there 
must,  therefore,  exist  a  central  authority  and  a  su- 
preme tribunal  identical  with  those  existing  in  the 
civil  powers.  But  Your  Eminence  has  seen  that  some 
of  these  powers,  although  called  final,  assume  the  pre- 
rogative of  infallibility.  Has  Your  Eminence  ever 
known  a  president  so  foolish,  or  a  king  so  stupid  as  to 

43  Mark  vii.  15.    Matt.  xvi.  6. 

44  Connect  together  the  following  passages :  Mark  ix.  and 
following,  and  Matt.  x.  43;    xx.  26,  27,  and  xxiii.  II. 

45  See  Cardinal  Zigliara:  Filosofia  Tomista  (Thomist  Phi- 
losophy) ;  book  I :  Rules  of  Syllogism.  Gonzales ;  Same 
head, 


106  ROMAN   CATHOLICISM 

say :  "I  am  infallible  because  there  is  no  appeal  from 
me?"  Does  not  Your  Eminence  believe  that  both  presi- 
dent and  kings  are  liable  to  error,  although  there  is 
practically  no  appeal  from  them  ?  Does  not  Your  Emi- 
nence believe,  that  if  after  pronouncing  a  judgment, 
they  became  fully  satisfied,  by  the  evidence,  that  they 
had  committed  a  mistake,  and  that  their  mistake  might 
have  fatal  consequences,  they  would  not  correct  their 
mistake  and  alter  their  decision?  Have  we  not  the 
recent  example  of  France?  Now  if  Your  Eminence 
considers  infallibility  identical  with  finality,  and 
nothing  more,  then  Your  Eminence  is  one  of  us, 
and  I  would  at  once  proclaim  Your  Eminence  Pope, 
and  kiss  as  a  sign  of  submission,  not  your  sandal, 
which  I  would  consider  humiliating,  but  your  pas- 
toral ring. 

That  a  certain  kind  of  argument  only  is  permitted 
in  Rome,  where  Vaticanism  exercises  a  paramount  in- 
fluence over  ecclesiastics;  that  another  kind  of  argu- 
ment cannot  be  published  in  Latin  Europe,  where 
Roman  excommunication,  like  the  terrible  Hercules' 
club,  still  presses  down  in  a  horrible  manner  upon  the 
conscience  and  the  human  intelligence,  one  familiar 
with  the  conditions  there  existing,  can  understand  and 
explain  to  himself.  But  here  in  this  country  of  true 
freedom,  an  essentially  progressive  and  expanding 
nation,  a  state  where  all  legitimate  and  rational  inde- 
pendence is  looked  upon  with  approval,  instead  of 
fear  or  apprehension,  a  region  where  the  "ensemble" 
of  doctrines  has  given  rise  to  the  ecclesiastical  term 
"Americanism,"  redeeming  synthesis  of  modern  reli- 
gious societies;  here,  be  it  said,  one  cannot  under- 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  10/ 

stand  or  explain  the  exposition  of  certain  doctrines. 
Still  "Umtsquisque  in  sensu  suo  spondct"  (Let  every 
one  do  as  he  pleases). 

Let  it  be  recorded  that  neither  the  Bible,  nor  so- 
ciologic  theology,  demonstrates  the  personal  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope.  Can  this  be  demonstrated  by  apos- 
tolic or  sub-apostolic  testimony?  This  will  be  the  sub- 
ject of  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  X. 

DO  THE  ACTS  OF  PETER  AND  THE  CONDUCT  OF  THE  OTHER 

APOSTLES  AFFIRM  OR  DENY  THE  INFALLIBILITY 

OF   THE   POPE? 

IN  order  to  avoid  useless  digressions,  it  is  well  to 
clearly  establish  at  the  outset,  the  meaning  involved 
in  the  double  title  of  this  chapter. 

If  Christ  granted  infallibility  to  Peter  in  a  solemn 
manner  and  in  the  presence  of  the  other  apostles, 
Peter  should  be  the  first  to  be  persuaded  of  that  ex- 
traordinary prerogative.  His  words  and  acts  must 
therefore  harmonize  with  that  persuasion.  This  must 
be  applied  and  understood  in  such  a  way,  that  if  we 
should  find  any  passage  in  which  Peter  had  to  exer- 
cise the  said  privilege,  but  failed  to  do  so,  we  should 
at  once  have  a  most  powerful  argument  for  denying 
his  infallibility.  For,  merely  an  erroneous  definition 
coming  from  one  Pope,  would  demolish  the  infalli- 
bility of  all  of  them,  according  to  the  Romans  them- 
selves.1 And  so  also  in  any  single  passage,  in  which 
Peter  spoke  and  acted,  as  if  he  did  not  possess  such  a 
valuable  gift,  it  would  be  more  than  sufficient  reason 
to   deny,  or  at  least   to   question,   the   infallibility   of 

*Read  Jaugey:  Infalibilidad  (Infallibility).  Read  Casa- 
nova :  Fundamental  Theology.  Read  Perrone :  De  la  Verda- 
dera  Religion  (True  Religion).  Read  The  Church  and  the 
Pope.  Read  Hettinger :  Same  head.  Any  of  the  Roman 
theologians  will  confirm  this  statement. 
(108) 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  IO() 

Peter,  whenever  we  are  dealing  with  cases  or  oc- 
casions in  which  he  should  invoke  his  said  infallibility, 
to  determine  or  decide  them.  The  apostles  would  act 
in  like  manner,  since  they  are  the  ear-witnesses  to  the 
concession  and  magnificent  privilege  granted  to  Peter 
by  Christ.  They  must,  therefore,  be  the  principal  be- 
lievers in  the  said  infallibility,  they  must  be  the  first 
to  respect  and  revere  it,  they  must  be  the  first  teachers 
to  convey  it  to  the  new  people.  If  they  did  not  act 
thus,  and  we  should  find  that  in  their  preaching  and 
behavior  they  proceeded  as  though  they  knew  noth- 
ing of  such  a  privilege,  we  would  then  have  sufficient 
cause  to  question  its  existence.  And  if  we  should 
find  only  one  passage,  only  one  word,  only  one  act 
on  the  part  of  the  apostles  contrary  to  such  infalli- 
bility, then  we  would  not  only  be  justified  in  doubting 
such  infallibility,  but  also  in  roundly  denying  it. 
Either  of  these  three  declarations,  if  not  admitted  as 
good  by  our  opponents,  places  them  in  contradiction 
either  with  the  most  fundamental  rules  of  sound  criti- 
cism, or  with  the  main  principles  of  their  history  and 
theology.2  The  Romanists  must  never  forget  that  they 
have  always  to  prove,  on  every  necessary  occasion, 
that  infallibility  did  accomplish  and  does  accomplish 
everything ;  and  that  to  us,  on  the  contrary,  one  single 
word  from  the  apostolic  times,  one  single  act  of  the 
apostles  contradicting  that  prerogative,  is  more  than 
sufficient  reason  to  demolish  it.  In  return,  we  admit, 
and  this  will  show  the  sincerity  of  our  arguments,  that 
if  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  spoke  and  acted  as  if 

"Jaugey:    Head,  Critics  and  its  Principle.     Read  the  his- 
torians Rohrbacher,  Rivas,  etc. 


IIO  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

such  infallibility  did  exist,  then  we  would  be  the  first 
to  respect  it,  because  being  moved  as  they  were  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  all  their  acts,  the  idea  of  their  erring 
would  be  conflicting.3  A  similar  consideration  must 
be  applied  when  dealing  with  the  immediate  success- 
ors of  the  apostles,  with  only  this  exception:  that  the 
arguments  based  on  sayings  and  acts  of  the  latter, 
would  carry  divine  and  irrefutable  authority,  whereas 
the  arguments  of  the  others  would  carry  only  human 
and  controvertible  authority.  The  question  being  thus 
put  with  all  loyalty  and  frankness,  we  will  now  ex- 
amine it,  beginning  with  the  conduct  observed  by  Peter 
himself.  We  select  precisely  the  same  Chapter  xv 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  with  deep  regret  we 
must  again  invite  the  attention  of  the  most  learned 
primate  or  pontifical  delegate  of  North  America.  We 
may,  perhaps,  be  mistaken,  but  the  manner  in  which 
Cardinal  Gibbons  narrates  what  happened  at  the  cele- 
brated Jerusalem  Council  may  lead  into  error  those 
who  have  not  read  the  whole  of  Chapter  xv,  but  are 
contented  with  the  mutilated  portion  of  it,  as  presented 
by  Cardinal  Gibbons.4  Reading  the  passage  as  stated 
by  H.  E.  the  Cardinal,  there  would  appear  to  have 
occurred  some  discussion  before  Peter  spoke;  that 
Peter  alone  rises  to  speak,  and  that  after  listening  to 
him,  they  all  remain  silent,  and  Peter's  motion  is  car- 
ried in  his  sole  name,  and  under  his  exclusive  re- 
sponsibility, without  anyone  else  speaking.  Now, 
Your  Eminence,  when  a  Romanist  of  your  rank  de- 
clares in  your  own  words,  that  you  imbibed  her  doc- 

3  Jaugey :    Head,  Revelation. 

4  Cardinal  Gibbons:    Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  p.  127. 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  Ill 

trine  with  your  mother's  milk,  and  made  her  history 
and  theology  the  study  of  your  life,  and  present  to  us, 
as  proof  of  infallibility  a  garbled  chapter,  when  that 
chapter  taken  in  its  entirety,  states  exactly  the  con- 
trary, the  stock  of  proofs  must  be  very  scanty  indeed, 
else  you  would  not  have  recourse  to  such  deficient 
and  contradictory  means.  I  presume  your  Bible  to  be 
as  complete  as  mine.  Let  us,  then,  continue  reading 
from  that  celebrated  chapter.  Then  (after  Peter 
spoke)  all  the  multitude  was  silent  and  listened  to 
Barnabas  and  Paul  (two  others  who  spoke  after 
Peter),  who  related  all  the  miracles  and  marvels  per- 
formed by  God  through  them,  among  the  Gentiles. 
And  after  these  had  spoken  the  multitude  becomes 
silent  again,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  did  when 
Peter  spoke;  St.  James  (a  third  apostle,  who  speaks, 
and  who  does  seem  to  be  the  true  Pontiff,  by  the  tone 
of  his  language,  unlike  that  of  the  humble  Peter's) 
answered  by  saying:  "Men  and  brethren,  listen  to 
me,"  etc.  (we  will  later  copy  his  doctrine  in  full). 
As  Cardinal  Gibbons  can  see,  it  is  not  Peter  alone 
who  speaks,  but  also  Barnabas,  Paul  and  St.  James, 
who,  speaking  later,  do  not  suppose  the  matter  entirely 
settled  by  Peter.  Now,  according  to  a  prudential 
maxim  of  canonical  law,  in  great  councils  and  col- 
lective decisions,  in  order  that  the  junior  dignitaries 
may  not  appear  as  though  restrained,  and  may  express 
their  opinion  with  entire  freedom,  they  are  granted  the 
privilege  of  speaking  and  deciding  first,  for  if  they 
did  so  after  the  seniors,  the  prestige  of  the  latter  might 
curtail  the  independence  of  the  former.5  According  to 

"Read  Bouix :     Canon   Law    (De   Jure   Canonico).      Read 
9 


112  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

this  maxim,  Peter  appears  of  minor  importance,  hav- 
ing been  the  first  to  speak,  while  St.  James,  who  spoke 
last,  is  favored.  When  we  examine  the  language  of 
the  two,  we  shall  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion.  For 
that  reason  we  cannot  recover  from  our  astonishment 
at  the  fact  that  a  man  of  Cardinal  Gibbons'  character, 
an  American  prelate  of  his  reputation  and  prestige, 
and  one  possessed  of  his  vast  enlightenment,  should 
employ  the  same  methods  of  demonstrating  infalli- 
bility, as  those  used  by  the  fictitious  and  decadent 
Romanists.  What  a  disenchantment  the  reading  of 
his  book  has  been  to  me!  What  a  bitter  disillusion! 
What  a  blow  to  the  belief  that  in  America  I  would  find 
prelates  of  the  tenacity  of  the  immortal  Cardinal  New- 
man, who,  notwithstanding  the  declaration  of  infalli- 
bility, dared  to  face  the  wrath  and  storm  of  the  Vatican 
by  denying  such  documents  of  Pius  IX  as  "The  Sylla- 
bus,"  which  document  is  recognized  as  one  of  the  most 
important  of  the  Romanists'.6  Imagine,  as  I  say, 
my  disappointment  and  disenchantment  in  coming  to 
America  from  Europe,  where  one  sees  everything  in 
religious  circles  corroded,  where  decay  invades  all,  from 
the  tiara  to  the  village  curate,  where  senility  and 
moral  looseness  adorn  themselves  with  the  showy 
drapery  of  submission  and  virtue,  where  prevails  an 
eagerness  to  praise  and  flatter  individuals  rather  than 
telling  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  thereby  being  able 
the  better  to  enjoy  the  power  of  mere  sordid  wealth — 
to  find,  alas,  in  America,  the  far-famed  home  of  true 

Bouix:    De  Jura   Regulari    (Regular   Law).      Read  Bouix: 
Head,  Reuniones  Definitoriales. 
e  Jaugey :    Head,  Syllabus. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  II3 

liberty  (where  the  enlightened  pioneers  who  conceived 
and  systematized  the  doctrinal  compendium  termed 
"Americanism,"  7  must  be  of  another  way  of  thinking), 
that  the  classical  book  on  religion,  the  one  authorized 
by  the  signature  of  the  greatest  prestige,  is  not  only 
an  echo  of  the  most  rabid  Romanism,  but  one  not  pos- 
sessing even  the  merit  of  the  crafty  art,  and  seductive 
cunning  of  European  Vaticanism.  But  let  us  return 
to  the  subject.  What  is  the  teaching  that  springs  in 
the  clearest  manner  from  Chapter  xv  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  ?  To  anyone  reading  it  carefully  and  im- 
partially, that  which  strikes  the  eye  without  even  seek- 
ing, is  that  all  those  blessed  pioneers  believed  in  every- 
thing, excepting  in  Peter's  infallibility ;  everything  was 
conducted  and  everything  was  determined  upon,  as  if 
Peter  had  been  one  of  their  number,  nay,  even,  as  if 
Peter  had  been  in  fact  inferior  to  St.  James.  Let  the 
Bible  speak  for  us,  since  its  language  is  most  clear 
and  convincing.  ''And  certain  men  which  came  down 
from  Judea  taught  the  brethren,  and  said,  Except  ye 
be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot 
be  saved.  When,  therefore,  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
no  small  dissension  and  disputation  with  them,  they 
determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  certain  other 
of  them,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  apostles 
and  elders  about  this  question."  Pray  observe,  Car- 
dinal Gibbons,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  go  to  Jeru- 
salem not  to  see  Peter  alone,  but  also  the  apostles  and 
elders.  To  proceed:  "And  being  brought  on  their 
way  by  the  church,  they  passed  through  Phenice  and 
Samaria,  declaring  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles: 
7  Read  Encyclical  of  Leo  XIII  about  Americanism. 


114  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

and  they  caused  great  joy  unto  all  the  brethren.  And 
when  they  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  received 
of  the  church,  and  of  the  apostles  and  elders,  and  they 
declared  all  things  that  God  had  done  with  them." 
Pray,  listen  to  it,  cardinal :  they  were  received  not  by 
Peter  alone,  but  by  the  Church  and  by  the  apostles  and 
by  the  elders.  Let  us  continue:  "But  there  rose  up 
certain  of  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees  which  believed, 
saying,  That  it  was  needful  to  circumcise  them,  and  to 
command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses.  And  the 
apostles  and  the  elders  came  together  for  to  consider 
of  this  matter."  Let  not  Cardinal  Gibbons  forget: 
they  assembled  to  resolve  upon  a  question,  not  with 
Peter  alone,  which  sufficed  had  he  been  infallible,  but 
with  the  apostles  and  the  elders.  Proceeding:  "And 
when  there  had  been  much  disputing,  Peter  rose  up, 
and  said  unto  them,  Men  and  brethren,  ye  know  how 
that  a  good  while  ago  God  made  choice  among  us, 
that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should  hear  the  word 
of  the  gospel,  and  believe.  And  God,  which  knoweth 
the  hearts,  bare  them  witness,  giving  them  the  Holy 
Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  us :  And  put  no  difference 
between  us  and  them,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith. 
Now,  therefore,  why  tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  upon 
the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor 
we  were  able  to  bear?  But  we  believe,  that  through 
the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  we  shall  be  saved, 
even  as  they.  Then  all  the  multitude  kept  silence." 
Pray  notice,  Cardinal,  the  tone  in  which  Peter  speaks, 
explains,  relates  and  enquires  like  anybody  else;  he 
neither  decides,  nor  judges,  as  he  should  do  if  he  him- 
self had  believed  in  his  own  infallibility.     Let  us  read 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  IIj 

further.  "Then  all  the  multitude  kept  silence,  and  gave 
audience  to  Barnabas  and  Paul,  declaring  what  mir- 
acles and  wonders  God  had  wrought  among  the  Gen- 
tiles by  them.  And  after  they  had  held  their  peace, 
James  answered,  saying,  Men  and  brethren,  hearken 
unto  me:  Simon  hath  declared  how  God  at  the  first 
did  visit  the  Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  people  for 
his  name.  And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  proph- 
ets; as  it  is  written,  After  this  I  will  return,  and  will 
build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David,  which  is  fallen 
down;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I 
will  set  it  up :  That  the  residue  of  men  might  seek 
after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles,  upon  whom  my 
name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord,  who  doeth  all  these 
things.  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world.  Wherefore  my  sentence  is, 
that  we  trouble  not  them,  which  from  among  the  Gen- 
tiles are  turned  to  God :  But  that  we  write  unto  them, 
that  they  abstain  from  pollutions  of  idols,  and  from 
fornication,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  blood. 
For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city  them  that 
preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sab- 
bath day."  This  apostle  does  speak  the  language 
proper  to  the  future  Roman  Pontiff :  and  while  Peter, 
enquires  and  explains,  he  judges  and  decides ;  while 
the  humble  and  weak  Peter  (does  not  Your  Eminence 
feel  offended  at  the  treatment  given  to  Peter  by  the 
same  Holy  Ghost  through  Paul's  lips?)8  does  not  de- 
cide or  rule  upon  anything  definite,  St.  James  rules 
and  determines  that  those  of  Antioch  must  be  written 
to,  and  dictates  exactly  the  sense  in  which  to  write 
8  Read  Galatians  i  and  ii. 


Il6  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

to  them.  Well,  now !  "Aliqiiando  bonus  dormitat  Ho- 
mcrns"  (The  wisest  will  commit  mistakes).  To  quote 
Chapter  xv  as  a  proof  of  the  Pope's  personal  infalli- 
bility is,  Your  Eminence,  as  ridiculous,  as  if  I  were  to 
quote  Louis  XIV's  bon  mot,  "L'Etat  c'est  moi"  (I 
am  the  state),  to  substantiate  the  principles  of  the 
French  Revolution !  Let  us  close  the  chapter  because 
the  whole  of  it  is  the  most  explicit  condemnation  of 
the  individual  infallibility  of  the  Pontiffs.  "Then 
pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders,  with  the  whole 
church,  to  send  chosen  men  of  their  own  company  to 
Antioch  with  Paul  and  Barnabas ;  namely,  Judas  sur- 
named  Barsabas,  and  Silas,  chief  men  among  the 
brethren."  Let  Cardinal  Gibbons  comment  upon  these 
words:  Peter,  as  the  infallible,  does  not  appear  at 
all;  it  is  the  apostles,  the  elders,  the  whole  Church 
of  Jerusalem,  who  resolve  to  send  ambassadors  to 
Antioch.    Here  follows  a  copy  of  the  resolutions : 

"And  they  wrote  letters  by  them  after  this  manner ; 
The  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  send  greeting 
unto  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch 
and  Syria  and  Cilicia: 

"Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard,  that  certain  which 
went  out  from  us  have  troubled  you  with  words,  sub- 
vertipg  your  souls,  saying,  Ye  must  be  circumcised, 
and  keep  the  law;  to  whom  we  gave  no  such  com- 
mandment : 

"It  seemed  good  unto  us,  being  assembled  with  one 
accord,  to  send  chosen  men  unto  you  with  our  beloved 
Barnabas  and  Paul : 

"Men  that  have  hazarded  their  lives  for  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  II7 

"We  have  sent  therefore  Judas  and  Silas,  who 
shall  also  tell  you  the  same  things  by  mouth. 

"For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us, 
to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  neces- 
sary things ; 

"That  ye  abstain  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and 
from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  for- 
nication :  from  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves,  ye  shall  do 
well.     Fare  ye  well. 

"So  when  they  were  dismissed,  they  came  to  An- 
tioch:  and  when  they  had  gathered  the  multitude  to- 
gether, they  delivered  the  epistle : 

"Which  when  they  had  read,  they  rejoiced  for  the 
consolation." 

What  conclusion  does  Your  Eminence  reach,  con- 
sidering that  Peter,  as  the^  infallible  one,  should  have 
been  the  man  to  head  and  sign  the  letter,  but  instead, 
it  is  headed  and  signed  by  all  ?  While  the  Holy  Ghost, 
according  to  Romanism,  should  have  become  asso- 
ciated with  Peter  only,  it  joins  the  whole,  and  the 
name  of  Peter  appears  nowhere.  When  it  should  have 
been  Peter's  doctrine  copied  in  the  letter,  it  is  the 
doctrine  decided  upon  and  chosen  by  St.  James  that 
is  transcribed  and  sent.  Can  a  greater  denial  be  given 
to  the  infallibility  of  the  Popes  than  that  thrown  out 
by  the  Jerusalem  Council?  Let  us  summarize  the 
doctrine  scattered  over  preceding  pages. 

If  infallibility  were  a  gift  made  by  Christ  to  Peter, 
in  a  solemn  manner,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  apos- 
tles, they  and  Peter  should  have  been  the  first  to  be- 
lieve in  it,  and  on  the  solemn  occasion  of  that  first 
council,  it  should  have  appeared  and  shone  resplendent 


Il8  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

as  the  sun,  clear  as  the  light  of  day.  But  in  that 
council  the  said  infallibility  effectually  suffers  a  first 
and  total  rebuke.  Peter  instead  of  playing  the  char- 
acter of  the  infallible,  explains  and  enquires,  speaks 
first  instead  of  speaking  last ;  contra,  St.  James,  instead 
of  speaking  as  the  inferior  of  Peter,  speaks  as  if  he 
were  the  true  teacher  and  judge :  it  is  he  who  decides 
what  has  to  be  done  and  how  it  is  to  be  done.  Finally, 
instead  of  Peter  alone  confirming  the  resolution,  as  he 
should  do  by  virtue  of  his  infallible  authority,  they  all 
sign  together  as  equal  judges,  possessing  equal  power 
and  jurisdiction.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  Chap- 
ter xv  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  demonstrate  or 
corroborate  the  individual  infallibility  of  the  Popes, 
but  much  and  a  very  great  deal  to  deny  it  in  the  clear- 
est and  most  negative  manner.  If  anyone  after  read- 
ing the  whole  chapter  referred  to  in  its  entirety,  still 
believes  that  it  contains  any  proof,  by  which  the  pre- 
tended pontifical  prerogative  of  infallibility  can  be  de- 
fended, he  should  not  be  surprised  at  his  believing 
also,  any  day,  that  the  Pope  is  not  a  human  being  but 
some  divinity,  a  belief  already  entertained  by  a  few, 
according  to  Cardinal  Gibbons,  a  statement  which  does 
him  so  much  harm.  We  consider  the  first  more  irra- 
tional and  illogical  than  the  second.  But  to  continue: 
we  have  two  letters  from  St.  Peter  himself,  three  from 
St.  John,  one  from  St.  James,  yet  another  from  Jude, 
and  also  the  Apocalypse.  Do  those  writings  say  any- 
thing concerning  that  important  prerogative  ?  Is  there 
any  passage  in  them  intimating  to  the  faithful  that 
Peter  and  his  successors  possess  the  extraordinary 
grace  of  infallibility  ?    Is  it  not  evident  to  Your  Emi- 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    TROTESTANTISM.  I IQ 

nencc  that  that  well  designed  silence  speaks  most  elo- 
quently against  it?  They  apprehend  and  even  see  be- 
fore them,  the  coming  heresy,  that  with  its  machina- 
tions and  arguments,  it  may  upset  everything;  but  if 
they  believed  that  in  the  "Apostolic  See"  9  there  would 
always  be  a  trustworthy  oracle  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
does  not  Your  Eminence  think  they  were  under  the 
obligation  to  say  to  their  followers :  "Though  error 
and  schism  supervene,  fear  not,  because  when  that 
happens  you  will  have  a  sure  means,  the  surest  chan- 
nel, toward  the  truth ;  you  will  need  only  to  look  to  the 
'Roman  See'  and  there  find  always  a  luminous  beacon 
that  through  wrecks  and  disasters  can  guide  you  to  a 
safe  port;  consult  and  follow  the  Roman  Pontiff:  by 
doing  so,  you  will  imitate  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"?  If  such  a  prerogative  was  known  to  them, 
was  it  not  a  crime  not  to  teach  it,  when  they  could,  at 
one  stroke  and  forever,  have  killed  all  controversy 
among  the  truly  faithful,  by  simply  proclaiming  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pontiffs?  If  this  had  been  a  heav- 
enly gift,  was  it  not  their  most  sacred  duty  to  make 
that  fact  known,  for  the  good  of  the  Church?  Your 
Eminence's  exclamation,  made  in  the  midst  of  the 
twentieth  century,  must  have  been  also  the  apostles' 
exclamation.  Oh !  what  great  happiness  for  Catholi- 
cism to  have  an  infallible  tribunal ! 10  always  at  hand 
and  for  all  necessary  purposes !  To  be  always  certain 
that  by  following  it,  we  are  on  the  path  of  truth !     Is 

"Acts  xx.  29,  30.  Matt.  vii.  15;  xxiv.  5,  II,  24.  Mark 
xiii.  22.    Rom.  xvi.  17.    Eph.  v.  6.    Col.  ii.  8.    Peter  ii.  1,  2,  3. 

10  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons :  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  the 
Supremacy  and  Infallibility  of  Popes,  specially;    page  162, 


120  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

it  possible  to  obtain  greater  consolation  or  greater 
happiness  ? 

That  should  have  been  the  first  and  fundamental 
teaching  of  the  apostles,  since  it  was  a  most  neces- 
sary one  to  preserve  the  unity  and  to  destroy  every 
heresy  in  its  cradle.  Therefore,  if  they  remained 
silent,  that  was  a  terrible  argument  against  infalli- 
bility. 

But  if,  in  exchange,  the  other  apostles  say  nothing 
against  infallibility,  we  have  St.  Paul,  whose  language 
and  behavior  are  uniformly  against  it.  Let  us  see. 
Here,  again,  we  must  draw  Cardinal  Gibbons'  atten- 
tion to  the  point ;  but  let  him  not  think  that  we  say  so 
for  oratorical  effect.  In  Europe  we  entertained  such 
a  high  opinion  of  his  practical  knowledge  and  lofty 
attainments;  we  heard  such  encomiums  from  author- 
ized spokesmen,  so  daring,  according  to  the  best  inter- 
pretation of  this  adjective,  that  on  our  way  here,  we 
imagined  we  were  going  to  find  in  his  writings  the 
needed  light,  solace  and  encouragement  to  undertake 
our  great  work  of  demolishing  the  Vatican  idol,  our 
profound  conviction  being  that  either  he  must  be  wiped 
out,  or  the  Latin  Church  will  disappear,  swallowed 
up  by  him,  in  the  same  way  as,  according  to  the  Bible, 
Moloch  used  to  swallow  up  his  victims.  For  that 
reason  we  feel  truly  vexed  in  having  to  impeach  the 
man  whom  we  previously  admired  and  applauded. 
But  our  axiom  is  the  one  so  frequently  adduced  in 
scholasticism,  namely :  Amicus  Plato  sed  magis  arnica 
Veritas  (a  friend  to  Plato  but  a  greater  friend  to 
truth).  Says  Cardinal  Gibbons:  "It  matters  little 
that  Peter  should  think  different  from  Paul,  on  a  ques- 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  121 

tion  that  was  finally  settled  by  the  Church  1X  in  favor 
of  the  latter  and  against  the  former,  because  this  be- 
ing a  disciplinary  matter,  Peter  might  make  a  mistake 
and  Paul's  censures  mean  nothing."  May  we  ask, 
What  can  Cardinal  Gibbons  understand  by  disciplinary 
questions?  We  are  fairly  acquainted  with  the  cur- 
riculum, and  our  opinion  is,  that  the  matter  under  dis- 
cussion was  something  more  than  a  disciplinary  one. 
The  first  verse  of  the  famous  Chapter  xv  does  not 
assume  that  that  question  was  limited  solely  to  the 
circumstantial  act  of  circumcision,  but  it  comprises 
also  the  fulfillment  of  the  entire  old  law.  When  Peter 
speaks  of  it,  one  understands  also  that  he  refers  to 
the  obligation  of  keeping,  or  not,  all  the  old  law.  Paul 
explicitly  states  that  the  circumcised  undertake  to  keep 
the  whole  law.12  Let  Your  Eminence  read  the  passages 
mentioned  and  you  will  see  how  evident  this  is.  And 
that  great  question  of  whether  or  no  13  the  entire  law 
must  be  kept.  Your  Eminence  simply  calls  that  ques- 
tion a  mere  disciplinary  one !  A  fine  way  of  evading 
the  point,  indeed !  By  the  same  proceeding,  any  Ro- 
manist could  soon  find  arguments  to  prove  that  the 
majesty  of  the  Most  Holy  Trinity  is  purely  and  sim- 
ply a  matter  of  worship,  a  subject  of  discipline.  But 
let  us  suppose  that  the  question  is  nothing  more  than 
a  disciplinary  one.  Does  Your  Eminence  expect  with 
that  to  untie  the  Gordian  knot  of  the  objection?  Not 
so,  Your  Eminence.  The  question  remains  standing.  Is 
Your  Eminence  aware  that  on  matters  of  general  dis- 

11  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Same  book,  page  128. 

12  Gal.  xv.  3. 
"Acts  xv.  1,  10. 


122  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

cipline  the  Pope  must  also  be  infallible  ? 14  Please 
refer  to  the  Romanist  authors  quoted  in  the  notes,  the 
flower  and  the  cream  of  Romanist  theology,  and  you 
will  see  how  the  infallibility  of  the  Popes  includes  also 
every  question  on  general  discipline.  And  what  point 
more  general  can  there  be,  than  to  determine  if  all  and 
every  Christian  must  keep,  or  need  not  keep,  the  law 
of  Moses !  Can  Your  Eminence  imagine  any  other 
more  general  disciplinary  doctrine?  Therefore,  even 
on  the  hypothesis  of  being  a  disciplinary  question, 
which  we  do  not  admit,  according  to  Roman  theology 
it  would  come  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pontifical 
infallibility,  and  for  that  very  reason,  a  single  mistake 
made  by  any  one  Pope  could  be  enough  to  destroy 
the  entire  structure  raised  to  uphold  it.  Now  what 
does  the  Bible  say  on  this  disturbing  controversy? 
Listen  15  to  Paul,  the  oracle  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"Paul,  an  apostle  (not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father,  who  raised  him 
from  the  dead). 

"But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed." 

Let  us  see  what  Paul,  inspired  by  Jesus  Christ,  says 
about  poor  Peter. 

"But  I  certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  gospel  which 
was  preached  of  me  is  not  after  man. 

"For  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ. 

14  Read  Schouppe :  Compendium  Theologicum  de  Infallibili- 
tate.  Read  Cardinal  Vives :  Same  head.  Read  Casanova  and 
Hettinger:    Same  head.     Read  Jaiigey:    Head,  Infallibility. 

15  Galatians. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  I23 

"For  ye  have  heard  of  my  conversation  in  time  past 
in  the  Jews'  religion,  how  that  beyond  measure  I  per- 
secuted the  Church  of  God,  and  wasted  it : 

"And  profited  in  the  Jews'  religion  above  many  my 
equals  in  my  own  nation,  being  more  exceedingly  zeal- 
ous of  the  traditions  of  my  fathers.  .  .  . 

"But  when  Peter  was  come  to  Antioch,  I  withstood 
him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed. 

"For,  before  that  certain  came  from  James,  he  did 
eat  with  the  Gentiles:  but  when  they  were  come,  he 
withdrew  and  separated  himself,  fearing  them  which 
were  of  the  circumcision. 

"And  the  other  Jews  dissembled  likewise  with  him ; 
in  so  much  that  Barnabas  also  was  carried  away  with 
their  dissimulation. 

"But  when  I  saw  that  they  walked  not  uprightly 
according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  I  said  unto  Peter 
before  them  all,  If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the 
manner  of  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why 
compellest  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews?" 

Poor  Peter!  What  hast  thou  come  to  with  all  the 
infallibility  laid  on  thy  shoulders?  Thou  art  being 
whipped  round  like  a  top.  On  the  one  hand  the 
impetuous  and  acrimonious  Paul  resists  thee,15  and 
even  injures  thee  ;  and  on  the  other,  fearing  the  censure 
of  St.  James,  notwithstanding  thy  infallibility,  thou 
goest  about  crestfallen  and  timorous.  Without  doubt 
thy  infallibility  must  have  been  different  from  thy  suc- 
cessor's, Pius  IX,  for  while  thou  goest  about  subdued 
by  opposite  factions,  thy  successor,  adapting  a  famous 

15  Gal.  ii.  11-14. 


124  ROMAN   CATHOLICISM 

phrase,  says :  "I  am  the  Church,16  without  me  you  are 
nothing."  While  thou,  Peter,  didst  now  listen  to  some, 
then  to  others,  acknowledging  the  right  of  everyone, 
thy  sublime  successor,  Pius  IX,  without  consideration 
of  any  kind,  as  Cromwell  dismissed  the  English  Par- 
liament, says  to  the  full  council  of  venerable  heads  of 
the  Church :  "If  I  die,  close  the  doors  and  go  to  your 
homes."  I7  It  seems  incredible  that  Cardinal  Gibbons 
should  take  seriously  the  other  indications  as  to  Paul 
consulting  Peter,  when  in  the  same  epistle  and  almost 
in  the  same  breath  he  emphatically  says,  that  he  con- 
siders as  three  pillars  of  strength,  not  St.  Paul  alone, 
but  also  St.  James  and  St.  John,  that  is  to  say,  that 
for  Paul  there  was  nothing  in  Peter,  that  St.  James 
and  St.  John  did  not  have.  Let  us  conclude  this  long 
and  tedious  matter,  by  stating  what  is  evident,  that 
neither  Peter  nor  the  apostles  knew  anything  of  what 
is  now  a  dogma  of  faith  in  Romanism,  under  the  name 
of  papal  infallibility. 

16  Read  Encyclical  of  Pius  IX  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Vatican 
Council. 

17  Read  the  same  as  cited  on  No.  16. 


CHAPTER  XL 

DID  THE  SUB-APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  BELIEVE  IN  THE  POPE'S 
INFALLIBILITY  ? 

ACCORDING  to  Romanistic  theology,  the  truth 
of  the  revelation  was  entirely  closed  and  termi- 
nated with  the  death  of  the  apostles.1  From  that  time 
no  one  can  add  the  smallest  thing  to  the  revealed 
doctrine.  The  only  thing  that  can  be  done  is,  to  de- 
velop and  illustrate  the  revelations,  to  corroborate  and 
synthetize  them  by  reasoning  and  compilations ;  but 
whoever  should  venture  to  add  to  the  truths  revealed, 
would  become  guilty  of  blasphemy  and  heresy.  The 
Pope  himself,  notwithstanding  the  divine  prerogative 
of  infallibility  attributed  to  him  by  Romanism,  holds 
no  higher  rank  in  this  question  than  the  most  ordinary 
man.2  Neither  the  common  people  nor  the  learned 
teachers  nor  the  venerable  bishops,  nor  the  Ecumenical 
Councils,  nor  the  sovereign  Pontiff  can  increase  the 
ensemble  of  the  principles  revealed.  Having  been  de- 
termined for  all  time  by  the  apostles,  so  they  shall  re- 
main until  the  end  of  the  world.  As  a  consequence  of 
this   most  important   doctrine,  the   following  evident 

1Rcad  Cardinal  Gibbons:  Chap.  II.  Read  Schouppe: 
Theologia  Dogmatica  De  Rcvelatione.  Read  Cardinal  Vives: 
Same  head. 

2  Cardinal  Gibbons :  Chap.  II.  Hettinger :  Theologia  Fun- 
damental. Casanova :  Same  head.  Jaugey :  Revelacion  y 
Doctrina  de  la  Iglesia. 

(125) 


126  ROMAN   CATHOLICISM 

conclusion  can  be  deduced:  Suppose  that  all  the  Fa- 
thers together,  in  a  clear  and  unequivocal  manner, 
proclaim  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope;  that  by  the  end 
of  the  first  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  second, 
this  belief  were  admitted  and  recognized  by  all  and 
everyone;  would  that  be  any  gain  toward  proclaim- 
ing the  infallibility  of  the  Pontiff?  No,  none  what- 
ever. On  the  assumption  that  the  apostles  themselves 
did  not  believe  in  such  a  prerogative,  they  could  not 
have  transmitted  it  to  their  immediate  successors,  the 
Fathers,  therefore,  on  the  latter  teaching,  a  purely 
human  doctrine,  instead  of  a  divine  one,  that  teaching 
could  not  be  added  to  the  truth  of  the  revelation,  since 
the  latter,  by  unanimous  consent,  came  to  an  end  at 
the  very  moment  of  the  apostles'  death.3  Consistently 
with  those  shining  and  fundamental  principles,  we 
might  consider  the  question  of  infallibility  as  closed 
with  the  last  words  of  the  preceding  chapter.  We 
might  say,  and  our  argument  would  be  most  correct, 
according  to  Roman  theology,  if  the  apostlesj  far  from 
believing  in  the  infallibility,  ignored  it  and  acted  as  if 
willing  to  reject  it,  this  was  because  it  did  not  exist, 
and  would  never  have  existed.  We  would  rather, 
however,  out  of  courtesy  to  Cardinal  Gibbons,  accom- 
pany him  in  his  investigation  through  the  centuries 
and  question  the  Fathers  with  him.  We  will  listen  to 
what  those  venerable  heads  have  to  say  concerning  so 
singular  a  privilege.  We.  will  enquire  into  whether 
those  enlightened  teachers  are  more  considerate  toward 

8  Read  same  author  as  above  and  also  Melchor  Cano:  De 
Locis  Theologicis  de  Ecclesia.  P.  Fernandez:  Same  head. 
Hurter :    Same  head. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  \2J 

infallibility  than  were  the  apostles,  who  in  truth  had 
for  it  neither  regard  nor  respect.  S.  Clement  I,  fourth 
Pope  and  third  successor  of  Peter,  is  the  first  witness 
who  appears  worthy  of  serious  consideration,  since 
he  is  a  wise  and  holy  Pope.  I  recall  that  in  my  school- 
days I  used  to  look  on  this  renowned  head  almost  as 
an  apostle;  with  simple  faith  I  believed  that  his  testi- 
mony concerning  papal  infallibility  was  most  im- 
pressive and  irrefutable.  How  my  views  have  changed 
since  reaching  mature  age !  How  many  bitter  disillu- 
sions have  I  not  suffered  every  time  I  have  had  to 
apply,  instead  of  the  false  Roman  doctrine,  the  reason 
and  conscience  given  to  all  by  God  Almighty,  and 
according  to  which  we  shall  be  judged!  How  many 
wasted  illusions  !  How  many  hopes  defrauded !  How 
many  and  what  painful  shocks  to  coordinate  what 
conscience  taught  in  a  positive  manner,  with  what  the 
Roman  faith  proclaims  as  infallible !  What  a  horrible 
disenchantment,  when,  notwithstanding  the  most  su- 
preme efforts,  I  beheld  issuing  forth  one  with  the 
other  and  growing  larger  and  larger  every  day  the 
incompatibility  on  papal  questions !  What  desolating 
conflicts,  when  there  was  no  other  option  but  to  choose 
one  or  the  other !  What  rending  perplexities  to-realize 
that  it  was  necessary,  compulsory  even,  to  reject  one 
of  the  two,  under  penalty  of  losing  both!  Alas!  he 
who  has  not  experienced  this  kind  of  torture,  does 
not  yet  know  what  it  is  to  suffer!  He  who  has  not 
faced  spiritual  battles  knows  not  the  most  fruitful 
source  of  pain  and  bitterness !  I  would  rather  a  thou- 
sand times  disappear  from  existence  than  to  be  seared 
again  with  such  a  horrible  Calvary.  For  that  reason, 
10 


128  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

every  time  mention  is  made  of  Clement  the  Roman, 
there  rushes  to  my  brain  in  furious  confusion  a  tor- 
rent of  pricking  memories.  It  was  the  first  pillar  to 
be  demolished  at  my  feet,  and  in  his  fall  I  saw  the 
whole  Roman  structure  totter  to  the  ground.  That 
is  to  say:  the  spiritual  home,  in  which  I  had  grown 
and  studied,  in  which  I  hoped  to  remain  until  the 
coming  of  the  Lord,  in  which  I  had  concentrated  all 
my  tenderest  affection,  and  in  which  I  had  placed  all 
my  consolation  and  all  my  ambitions!  The  expa- 
triated suffers  nothing  in  comparison  to  the  anguish 
experienced  when  I  was  compelled  to  say:  "Loves  of 
former  times,  away  with  ye,  ye  are  not  legitimate. 
Hopes  of  former  times,  ye  are  false.  Joys  of  yore,  ye 
also  are  fictitious."  The  fate  of  the  shipwrecked 
mariner  is  not  sadder  for  losing  his  chart  and  com- 
pass, and  being  engulfed,  than  was  mine,  to  see  the 
previously  shining  beacon  of  pontifical  infallibility, 
vanish  before  the  advancing  darkness  which  was  to 
surround  and  absorb  me ;  to  feel  the  abyss  yawn  at  my 
feet,  myself  on  the  brink  of  plunging  into  the  bottom- 
less chaos  of  despair!  God  Almighty,  Thou  knowest 
that  I  prevaricate  not,  nor  exaggerate.  Thou  didst 
see  more  than  once  the  burning  and  terrible  tears  of 
distress  bathe  my  cheeks !  Thou  didst  witness  that 
during  whole  weeks  I  went  about  disconsolate,  like 
a  man  deprived  of  reason,  without  the  sustenance  of 
life  or  restoring  sleep!  Blessed  be  Thou  a  thousand 
times,  for  Thy  help  and  comfort  during  that  fearful 
battle !  Blessed  be  Thou  a  thousand  times  because  Thou 
didst  bring  solace  to  my  spirit  and  peace  to  my  con- 
science !    Blessed  be  Thou  a  thousand  times  for  teach- 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 29 

ing  me  to  live  in  Thy  universal  Church,  without  any 
need  of  Romanism;  to  invoke  and  believe  in  Thy 
name  and  Thy  doctrine,  without  the  fabulous  Romish 
stories!  And  you,  kind  reader,  forgive  this  short 
digression  and  come  with  me  to  listen  to  Clement  the 
Roman. 

What  does  this  enlightened  Pope  say?  Does  he 
proclaim  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff? Your  Eminence  should  not  forget,  that  for  the 
testimony  to  be  admissible,  it  is  necessary  for  it  to 
bear  directly  on  the  papal  individuals,  and  that  it  de- 
clare that  infallibility  belongs  to  them,  and  will  re- 
main with  them,  in  perpetuity  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
In  accordance  with  sound  judgment,  as  we  go  back- 
ward to  the  first  centuries,  we  should  find  that  pre- 
rogative more  clearly  and  brilliantly  defined;  just  as 
we  get  nearer  to  the  spring,  the  water  should  be  more 
transparent  and  pure,  and  as  we  go  away  from  it, 
it  should  be  more  turbid  and  less  pure.  Appealing  to 
your  loyal  impartiality  as  an  American,  and  to  your 
frank  sincerity  as  a  writer,  I  ask,  Is  this  general  law 
of  history  and  of  judgment  observed  where  infallibility 
is  concerned?  Are  the  primitive  testimonies  more  ex- 
plicit or  clearer  than  the  secondary,  and  these  in  turn 
more  so  than  the  last  ones?  And  if  the  opposite  is 
exactly  what  does  happen  (and  I  do  not  believe  Your 
Eminence  would  venture  to  deny  it),  is  this  not  an 
almost  certainty,  that  infallibility  is  one  of  the  many 
ecclesiastical  myths  created  by  history,  and  centralized 
by  the  papacy?  When  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers 
is  taken  as  a  whole,  in  harmony  with  the  general  laws 
of  historical  evolution,  we  find  in  it  a  perfect  accord, 


130  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

and  we  arrive  at  the  evidence  that  infallibility  is  purely 
of  ecclesiastical  origin.  St.  Clement  is  the  first  witness 
to  this  true  theory.  Neither  Catholic  conscience,  nor 
Catholic  intelligence,  was  yet  prepared  to  receive  the 
enormous  weight  of  a  personal  infallibility.  The  ex- 
ample of  the  apostles  was  too  fresh  in  the  mind  of  all, 
to  be  openly  falsified.  For  that  reason  Clement  the 
Roman,4  disciple  of  Peter,  acts  and  speaks  like  that 
apostle.  Like  him,  he  addresses  the  Corinthians  in 
humble  language,  not  with  any  attitude  of  authority, 
as  befitted  an  infallible  Pope,  but  advising  and  ex- 
plaining, instead  of  ordering  and  excommunicating. 
Let  Your  Eminence  read  any  of  the  modern  papal 
bulls,  and  compare  their  style  to  that  of  Clement.  In 
the  former  you  will  see  flashing  the  wrathful  rays  of 
infallibility;  in  the  latter  the  simplicity  and  humility 
of  a  wise  man  seeking  the  truth,  which  he  thinks  he 
possesses,  and  while  so  thinking  transmits  it  to  others. 
But  Your  Eminence  will  see  nothing  that  appears  as 
infallible.  Lastly,  and  this  is  convincing  to  Roman- 
ism, the  latter  is  headed  and  signed  not  as  if  an  in- 
dividual Pontiff  were  speaking,  as  he  should  do  if  he 
believed  in  personal  infallibility,  but  as  an  expression 
from  the  whole  Roman  collectivity,  as  an  echo  from 
the  Roman  Church. 

I  ask  Your  Eminence,  can  a  clear  proof  be  adduced 
that  personal  infallibility  was  not  believed  in  in  those 
times  ? 

If  the  first  Pope,  in  a  public  document  and  as  we 
might  say  now,  ex  cathedra,  instead  of  resting  on  his 

4  Read  Clemens  Romanus :  Letters  to  the  Corinthians,  by 
Hefele. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  I3I 

own  infallibility,  rests  on  the  collectivity  of  his  own 
Church,  is  this  not  clear  proof  that  he  did  not  believe 
himself  infallible?  St.  Clement's  testimony  proves 
nothing  in  favor  of  Romanism,  but  a  great  deal  against 
it. 

Let  us  examine  the  second,5  St.  Ignatius.  This 
Father  did  realize  what  he  was  doing.  His  testimony 
could  not  bear  out  our  theory  with  greater  force.  He 
is  already  formulating,  not  the  Roman  infallibility, 
which  is  still  too  near  the  apostles,  but  the  first  firm 
step  of  the  episcopacy.  How  very  unfortunate  are 
the  Romanists  who  invoke  his  testimonies !  To  intro- 
duce the  letters  of  St.  Ignatius  for  the  purpose  of 
demonstrating  the  personal  infallibility  is  for  the  Ro- 
manist to  commit  ecclesiastical  suicide.  Read  care- 
fully, and  it  will  be  seen  that  he  grants  the  first  place 
to  the  Roman  Church,  not  over  the  whole  world,  but 
over  Italy  and  perhaps  over  the  Occident.  In  the 
eyes  of  St.  Ignatius  the  episcopacy  is  developing 
toward  the  metropolitan,  and  to  each  metropolitan  he 
makes  the  same  concession  as  to  Rome. 

Poor  pontifical  infallibility!  How  badly  you  come 
out  of  the  hands  of  a  writer,  who  believes  there  are 
so  many  superior  and  infallible  ones  as  bishops,  prin- 
cipals or  metropolitans!  Away,  then,  with  his  testi- 
mony, since  it  says  nothing  about  the  personal  infalli- 
bility of  the  Popes,  but  on  the  contrary  reduces  the 
Pontiff  to  a  mere  patriarch.  Closely  following  these 
two,  comes  St.  Irenaeus.6    This  writer  appears  some- 

5  Read   St.  Ignatius'  letter,  by  Hefele.     Read  Encyclopedia 
Britannica :    Head,  Popedom. 

6  Read  Migne :    Patrologia,  writings  of  St.  Irenaeus. 


132  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

what  contradictory:  on  the  one  hand,  he  praises  the 
Roman  See  (not  its  infallibility,  for  on  that  we  know 
nothing  as  yet)  :  on  the  other,  he  assails  the  Popes  and 
St.  Victor  rather  furiously  and  roughly,  accuses  them 
of  incompetence  in  passing  on  matters  of  general  dis- 
cipline, that  is  to  say,  on  matters  that  come  fully  within 
infallibility.  Then  St.  Irenaeus,  far  from  admitting  it, 
denies  it.  The  fourth  witness  is  Bishop  Hippolytus, 
of  Ponto.7  He  seems  like  the  new  Paul  of  the  first 
centuries.  In  what  bitter  language  does  he  censure 
the  Pontiffs,  Zephyrinus  and  Calixtus !  He  calls  them 
weak,  loose,  ignorant  and  ignoble.  He  threatens  them 
the  same  as  a  modern  bishop  would  any  village 
priest.  It  seems  to  me  that  when  he  used  such  lan- 
guage and  took  such  liberties  with  the  Popes  men- 
tioned, he  must  have  been  far  from  considering  them 
as  cloaked  with  the  ineffable  gift  of  infallibility. 
Those  who  can  reconcile  such  a  behavior  with  the 
belief  in  an  infallible  Pontiff,  could  also,  we  might  say, 
reconcile  the  Koran  with  the  Gospel.  One  marvels 
at  the  little  importance  given  to  such  language  by 
Cardinal  Gibbons.  Why  dispute  about  things  that  he 
can  see  for  himself?  Let  Your  Eminence  venture,  by 
way  of  trial,  to  censure  any  modern  Pope,  and  let  him 
do  so,  not  with  the  roughness  employed  by  St.  Irenaeus 
against  Victor,  nor  the  barbarous  discourtesy  of  Hip- 
polytus against  Zephyrinus  and  Calixtus,  but  in  meas- 
ured language  and  with  studied  courtesy,  and  Your 
Eminence  will  soon  see  appear  in  the  horizon  the  pon- 
tifical thunder  and  lightning,  will  very  promptly  be 

7  Read  Migne :   Patrologia,  writings  of  St.  Hypolitus,  Bishop 
of  Ponto.     Encyclopedia  Britannica :    Head,  Popedom. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  I33 

deprived  of  hat  and  see,  and  as  promptly  Your  Emi- 
nence's ecclesiastical  destruction  will  follow.  If  the 
pontifical  power,  after  having  been  so  much  abused, 
still  continues  to  throw  out  anathemas  as  objects  of 
terror,  what  explosions  it  would  not  have  caused  in 
the  first  centuries  when  at  that  time  it  was  buoyant 
and  young?  How  in  chorus  with  these  holy  Fathers 
two  others  appear,  who  without  being  holy,  are  also 
apostolic  Fathers,  and  certainly  among  the  most  im- 
portant, one  oriental,  the  other  occidental,  and  both 
quoted  by  Romanism  as  the  strongest  pillars  of  the 
Church  —  Tertullian  and  Origen.  The  first  ener- 
getically reproves  the  Roman  bishop  for  arrogating 
to  himself  the  ostentatious  title  of  chief  pontiff.8  If 
he  had  believed  him  infallible,  would  he  have  been 
guilty  of  the  contradiction  of  denying  to  him  a  title 
that  in  some  way  referred  to  his  authority?  But  the 
one  to  feel  acrimonious  and  scoffing  is  the  immortal 
Origen,  the  most  learned  encyclopedist  of  Christian- 
ism,  the  one  who  best  understood  how  to  defend  it 
against  the  rationalist  attacks  of  that  epoch ;  the  man 
to  whom  the  Church  is  most  indebted  on  account  of 
his  monumental  writings,  and  for  his  inconceivable 
labors  in  its  defense.  This  learned  man  and  apologist, 
one  of  the  greatest  in  the  world,  notwithstanding  his 
vast  knowledge  about  ancient  times,  notwithstanding 
his  having  known  how  to  defend  the  Church,  as  no 
one  better,  was  in  ignorance  of  what  Romanism  now 
proclaims  as  its  basis  and  foundation,  namely:  in- 
fallibility. And  not  thinking  it  important  to  deal 
gravely  with  a  question  so  arbitrary,  he  addresses 
8  Read  Tertullian  :    De  Pudicitia. 


134  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

himself  to  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  in  somewhat  jest- 
ing language,  exclaims : 9  "If  you  suppose  that  Christ 
founded  His  Church  on  Peter  alone,  what  role  do  you 
assign  to  the  other  apostles?  What  do  you  concede 
to  St.  James  and  to  St.  John,  whom  Christ  also  sur- 
named  'sons  of  thunder/  to  indicate  their  great  im- 
portance ?  "  We  will  close  this  paragraph  by  stating, 
as  no  impartial  person  will  deny,  that  the  sub-apostolic 
Fathers  knew  nothing  and  said  nothing  about  infalli- 
bility. 

And  the  councils?  Let  us  follow  Cardinal  Gibbons 
in  the  profitable  investigation.  The  very  existence  of 
the  councils  is  the  most  obvious  denial  of  that  of  in- 
fallibility. Why  perform  such  long  journeys  and  take 
upon  oneself  such  painful  troubles,  when  the  Holy 
Ghost  considered  everything  settled  by  a  simple  pon- 
tifical definition?  If  those  wise  heads  had  then  be- 
lieved in  what  is  now  an  article  of  faith  of  the  Roman- 
ists, why  grow  excited  over  burning  disputes,  and 
waste  so  much  energy  battling  against  each  other, 
since  by  merely  exhibiting  a  simple  formula  to  the 
Pontiff,  the  latter  determined  the  question  in  a  trice 
with  the  sanction  of  the  irrefutable  Holy  Ghost? 
Come,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  let  us  reason  like  men  and 
not  like  Romanists.  It  is  axiomatic  in  all  argument 
of  a  scientific  and  human  order  that  when  an  end  is 
sought  and  there  exist  channels  of  obtaining  it,  one 
long,  difficult,  laborious  and  unsafe,  the  other  quick, 
easy  and  secure,  every  sane  man  adopts  the  latter, 
and  only  the  mad  and  unbalanced  one  inclines  to  the 
former.      The   essence   of   this   identical   principle    is 

9  Encyclopedia  Britannica  :    Head,  Popedom. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 35 

translated  in  natural  and  sociological  sciences  as  "the 
line  of  least  resistance ;"  10  in  the  philosophical,  that 
beings  must  not  be  multiplied  without  necessity ; X1  in 
the  theological,  that  one  must  not  have  recourse  to 
supernatural  forces,  while  the  natural  elements  are 
sufficient.  But  our  conscience  and  our  spirit  are  so 
impregnated  with  this  principle,  that  always  and  on 
every  occasion  we  decide  what  we  believe  easier  in 
difficulty;  we  choose  the  safe  against  the  unsafe,  the 
surest  against  the  doubtful.  Even  when  we  make  a 
mistake  we  keep  the  law,  because  our  error  consists 
always,  in  that  we  believed  we  had  chosen  the  easiest, 
and  it  turns  out  afterward  to  be  otherwise;  but  if  we 
asked  our  spirit  why  it  inclined  in  a  given  direction, 
rejecting  others,  it  will  always  adduce  the  principle 
named  as  the  reason.  To  deny  this  principle,  would 
be  to  deny  human  rationality  and  wisdom.  Let  us 
then  apply  this  truth  to  the  question  under  discussion, 
not  with  a  preconceived  judgment,  but  with  the  pur- 
pose of  discovering  the  truth.  The  Fathers,  and  the 
common  people  of  the  earlier  centuries,  worked  to 
an  end,  namely:  to  define  the  true  Catholic  doctrine. 
They  were  facing  two  channels :  the  one  long,  difficult 
and  unsafe,  otherwise  the  councils,  but  in  this  way 
they  saw  the  councils  assembled  repeatedly,  and  the 
heretics  and  their  heresies  increased ;  the  other  channel 
was  simple,  quick,  and  safer,  to  appeal  to  the  Pope. 
If  those  Christians  had  believed  as  the  Romanists  of 
the  twentieth  century  believe,  in  papal  infallibility,  was 

10  Read  any  scientific  work  on  the  subject. 

11  Read  Cardinal  Gonzalez :  Philosophy ;  and  any  other 
author  on  this  subject.  P.  Fernandez:  Teologia  Dogmatica; 
and  any  other  theologian  on  the  subject. 


I36  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

it  not  a  veritable  madness  and  truly  a  crime  not  to 
make  the  appeal  ?  Could  not  one  single  Roman  decree 
have  silenced  all  disputes,  as  it  would  now  silence 
them  to  the  believers  in  infallibility?  If,  then,  infalli- 
bility would  now  be  fully  and  completely  efficacious  to 
the  believers,  does  not  Your  Eminence  see  as  clear  as 
noonday,  that  if  in  bygone  times  it  was  not  invoked 
or  had  recourse  to,  it  was  because  in  truth  there  was 
not  any  belief  in  it?  If  in  the  twentieth  century  in- 
fallibility suffices  to  prevent  the  disruption  of  the 
doctrine  (as  your  own  statement),12  how  was  it  not 
sufficient  or  enough  during  the  centuries  nearer  to 
Christ,  when  it  should  have  been  more  vivid  and  re- 
splendent? If  from  Christ  down  to  us  the  Church, 
the  whole  Church,13  has  believed  in  infallibility,  how  is 
it  that  in  later  centuries  it  can  decide  and  judge,  with 
entire  submission  from  the  people,  whereas  in  the  ear- 
lier centuries  it  is  neither  invoked  nor  respected  in  the 
manner  now  practised  by  Romanism  ?  If  there  should 
crop  up  in  America  divisions  in  the  faith,  would  not 
Your  Eminence  as  the  pontifical  delegate,  apply  to  the 
Roman  See  in  preference  to  any  council?  Then,  why 
did  not  the  old  Fathers  do  as  Your  Eminence  would 
do,  except  because  those  Fathers  did  not  believe  in 
what  Your  Eminence  believes?  This  argument  be- 
comes still  stronger  when  we  take  into  account  that 
between  the  fourth  and  the  fifth  centuries,  such  a  state 
of  confusion  was  reached  that  St.  Jerome  himself  is 
responsible  for  the  assertion  that  the  world  was  dumb- 

12 Read  Cardinal  Gibbons:    Chaps.  VIII,  IX,  X  and  XL 
13  Cardinal  Gibbons  :    Same  chapters.    Jaugey :    Inf  alibilidad 
(Infallibility). 


CAPITULATING    EEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 37 

founded,  at  having  gone  to  bed  Catholic  and  awakened 
Arian,  wise  and  holy  men  having  been  drawn  into 
error  by  the  semi-Arians.  If  that  happens,  why  did 
not  the  Popes  get  up  and  by  virtue  of  their  infalli- 
bility, proclaim  such  clear  and  convincing  judgments 
as  those  of  Pius  IX  in  the  Syllabus,  of  Leo  XIII 
against  Americanism,  and  that  of  Pius  X  against 
Modernism?  How  was  it  the  bishops  and  the  people 
did  not  see  that  shining  beacon  that  remained  burn- 
ing on  the  Vatican,  according  to  the  Romanists,  as 
an  infallible  token  ? 14  Those  not  impressed  by  these 
arguments,  can  be  classed  in  the  same  category  as  the 
Mahometan,  who  believes  in  all  innocence  that  his 
prophet  took  in  the  moon  by  his  right  sleeve,  and 
brought  it  out  by  the  left,  and  when  told  that  the 
moon  is  too  large  and  the  sleeve  too  narrow,  exclaims : 
"Oh !    Allah  is  great !" 

But  let  us  drop  the  first  councils,  since  we  must 
bring  them  up  again  when  dealing  with  the  unity  of 
the  doctrines,  and  let  us  now  touch  upon  the  worthy 
councils  of  Constance  and  Basle.  The  Romanist  ser- 
vility was  never  more  odious  and  deserving  of  eternal 
censure  than  when  we  see  it  treating  with  contempt 
those  two  famous  and  most  important  councils,  in 
order  to  flatter  the  Popes.15  What  assemblies  ever 
did  more  good  to  Christendom  than  these  two  vener- 
able councils?    Who  saved  Latin  Europe  from  Chris- 

14  Cardinal  Vives  :  Compendium  Theologicum  Dogmaticum  ; 
De  Infallibilitate. 

15  To  become  acquainted  with  the  state  of  the  Church,  read 
Baronio,  Rohrbacher,  Hergenrother :  Ecclesiastic  History, 
centuries  XIII  and  XIV;  also  Cesar  Cantu,  on  his  General 
History  on  the  Condition  of  the  Church,  centuries  XIII  and 
XIV. 


I38  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

tian  bankruptcy,  if  not  Constance  and  Basle?  While 
Christianity  was  divided  among  these  Pontiffs,  the 
most  subversive,  the  greatest  of  all  scandals  among 
ecclesiastical  powers,  was  the  order  of  the  day.  From 
Peniscola,  residence  of  Benedict  XIII,  came  excom- 
munications against  Avignon  and  Rome,  the  respective 
residences  of  Clement  and  Gregory.  These,  in  turn, 
sent  back  with  interest  the  anathemas  to  the  stubborn 
one  at  Peniscola.16 

In  the  midst  of  all  this  frightful  confusion  the  peo- 
ple knew  not  to  whom  to  look.  The  College  of  Car- 
dinals, the  universities,  the  episcopate  kingdoms,  re- 
ligious communities  and  the  common  people  lived  in 
complete  subversion.  The  wicked  applied  first  to  one 
Pope,  then  to  another,  in  their  endeavors  to  profit 
from  all.  To  some  universities  and  religious  com- 
munities there  were  three  rectors  and  three  superiors. 
The  Pontiffs,  in  their  eagerness  to  proselyte,  trafficked 
in  the  benefices  and  ecclesiastic  patronages.  Coming 
down  from  the  heads,  corruption  carried  gangrene 
everywhere,  over  all  the  ecclesiastic  body.  All  de- 
scription pales  before  such  a  state  of  things,  in  Latin 
Europe.  Yet,  the  council  that  terminated  such  dis- 
orders, the  assemblies  that  halted  those  terrible  calami- 
ties, are  looked  upon  with  contempt  by  the  proud  and 
servile  Romanist!  Even  if  Romanism  had  not  been 
guilty  of  a  more  despicable  sin  than  its  scornful  con- 
tempt towards  those  venerable  councils,  that  alone  was 
enough  to  remain  branded  with  ignominious  stigma, 
like  Cain.  Far  worse  than  a  fratricide  is  he  who 
condemns  to  death  those  who  gave  us  life,  and  who 

16  Read  same  authors  and  also  Rives  and  Alzog. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 39 

freed  us  from  the  inevitable  religious  hecatomb.  And 
all,  for  what  reason?  For  nothing  more  than  because 
when  those  respectable  Fathers  saw  that  the  Popes 
intended  to  establish  themselves  as  supreme,  and  in- 
fallible over  the  ecumenic  council,  they  declared  the 
sovereignty  and  infallibility  of  the  latter  over  the 
former.17  But  the  most  wondrous  is  that  while  deny- 
ing and  affirming  the  authority  of  those  councils,  Ro- 
manism has  caught  itself  in  a  blind  alley.  If  the 
council  was  not  above  the  Popes,  how  could  it  dis- 
miss them,  and  appoint  another  that  is  unanimously 
considered  by  Romanism  as  legitimate  ?  If  on  the  other 
hand  it  was  superior  to  the  Popes,  how  coordinate 
this  affirmation  with  Pius  IX's  bull  already  quoted 
several  times  ?  Of  this  hieroglyphic,  we  hope  Cardinal 
Gibbons  may  favor  us  with  a  deciphering,  while  we 
continue  to  affirm  that  to  all  sincere  and  impartial 
minds,  the  councils,  as  well  as  the  Fathers  and  the 
apostles,  deny  personal  infallibility. 

17  Read  Acts  of  the  Council,  already  mentioned. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

WILL  IT  BE  POSSIBLE  FULLY  TO  EXPLAIN  THE  PRIMACY 

AND  PONTIFICAL  INFALLIBILITY  BY  SIMPLE 

REFERENCE  TO  THE  GENERAL  LAWS 

OF  HISTORY? 

WE  have  seen  from  the  preceding  chapters  that 
the  apostles,  sub-apostolic  Fathers  and  the  first 
councils  were  far  from  believing  in  the  centralization 
of  authority  now  attributed  by  Romanism  to  the  sov- 
ereign Pontiff.  How  is  the  origin  and  development 
of  this  mighty  prerogative  to  be  explained  ?  By  whom 
and  how  was  that  stupendous  power  established  and 
consolidated?  This  is  a  point  well  cleared  up  by  the 
progress  of  history.  In  so  doing,  it  not  only  takes 
away  from  Romanism  the  probability  of  the  divine 
origin,  which  has  so  far  been  entirely  left  out  of  all 
discussion,  but  also  the  pretext  for  establishing  an 
authority  and  a  power  that  is  merely  human.  The 
same  general  law  has  been  followed  with  the  pontifical, 
as  with  any  other  similar  power.  The  pontificate  ap- 
pears as  all  other  human  institutions  do,  step  by  step, 
and  by  successive  additions,  energetically  preserved 
and  enlarged  by  the  despotism  of  the  Popes.  History 
teaches  how  the  great  human  empires  and  monarchies 
appear,  and  disappear,  are  consolidated  and  are  swept 
away,  solving  the  question  which  certainly  has  nothing 
mysterious  or  divine  about  it. 
(140) 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  I4I 

The  first  Church  to  appear  is  that  at  Jerusalem. 
Its  foundations  are  most  liberal  and  highly  demo- 
cratic ;  mutual  charity  and  respect  for  the  apostles  are 
the  only  canons  which  rule  that  poor  and  humble  con- 
gregation.1 The  apostles  dream  not  of  draping  them- 
selves with  that  show  of  majesty,  nor  of  exercising 
that  sovereignty  that  later  will  be  the  ostentatious 
features  of  those  calling  themselves  their  successors. 
In  the  first  council  we  see  assembled  the  apostles,  the 
elders  and  the  common  people.  The  democratic  or- 
ganization still  prevails  over  the  aristocratic. 

The  second  church  to  come  forth  is  that  at  Antioch.2 
Already  a  new,  though  slow  and  insignificant,  step  is 
made;  an  advance  takes  places  as  a  result  of  its  dis- 
putes :  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  creates  the  first  visit- 
ing inspectors.  This  looks  like  a  first  step  between 
elders  and  elders,  that  is  to  say,  between  priests  and 
bishops.  There  will  yet  come  a  period  when  those  two 
titles  will  serve  to  express  one  same  and  sole  dignity, 
consequently  said  dignity  will  frequently  be  called  by 
the  two  names.  The  distinction  is  not  yet  clear,  but 
the  idea  is  progressing  and  it  will  soon  take  shape  and 
crystallize.  We  will  find  clear  evidence  in  the  last 
days  of  St.  John,  that  the  bishops  are  leading  and 
acting  like  the  heads  of  their  respective  churches.  The 
name  of  angels  applied  to  the  seven  chiefs  of  the 
churches  of  Asia,3  clearly  indicates  that  there  existed 
already  some  priests  over  other  priests.     The  episco- 

1  Read  Acts,  first  chapters.  Read  Edw.  Gibbon :  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  last  chapter  of  the  first  vol- 
ume. 

2  Acts,  first  chapters,  and  Chapter  xv. 

3  Read  the  first  verses  of  Revelation. 


142  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

pate  is  already  advancing ;  the  first  step  that  will  later 
carry  us  up  to  the  pontifical  summit  is  already  taken. 
Soon  a  second  will  be  added,  then  a  third  and  a  fourth, 
and  the  lofty  mystic  ladder  of  the  pontificate  will  be 
completed.  But  to  compare  the  first  bishops  with 
the  present  ones,  would  be  a  sad  mistake.  The  latter 
are  now  assuming  aristocratic  ways ;  neither  the  com- 
mon people,  nor  even  the  canonic,  ever  take  part  in 
their  decisions  or  resolutions.4  Occasionally,  out  of 
mere  formality  and  respect  for  old  age,  the  latter  are 
allowed  a  hearing,  but  without  any  obligation  to  fol- 
low their  counsels :  it  is  the  latest  theoretical  remainder 
of  the  old  democracy,  practically  meaning  nothing, 
since  the  bishops  retain  their  fullest  liberty  to  act 
against  their  advice.  The  original  bishops  were,  on 
the  contrary,  the  first  aristocratic  element  to  be  seen 
in  the  midst  of  an  entirely  democratic  environment. 
The  first  bishops  are  the  echo  of  their  church;  priests 
and  common  people  participate  in  their  councils  and 
have  a  voice  in  their  election.5  The  original  bishop 
is  a  chief,  but  he  is  withal  democratic  and  comes  of  a 
democratic  community. 

The  second  century  will  come,  and  in  it  St.  Ignatius 
will  make  a  decided  step  toward  the  emancipation  of 
the  episcopate,  and  will  sow  the  first  ideas  of  the 
metropolitan,  the  second  step  of  the  pontifical  ladder.6 
According  to  him,  the  episcopate  is  already  a  thing 
apart,  ranking  above  priests  and  common  people.  He 
will  soon  appear  as  a  teacher  and  judge,  capable  of 

4  Bouix :    De  Jure  Canonico ;    De  Episcopes. 

5  Encyclopedia  Britannica :    Head,   Episcopacy. 

6  Read  St.  Ignatius'  letters,  by  Hef  ele ;  also  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  :   Head,  Episcopacy  and  Bishop. 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     I43 

deciding  by  himself  all  questions  that  may  arise  in  his 
community.  But  we  are  still  very  far  from  Roman 
centralism.  We  already  have  aristocratic  forms  to 
rule  the  congregations,  but  these  are  entirely  of  a 
federal  character.  Each  bishopric  will  govern  itself, 
without  one  being  subject  to  the  other.  The  bishop 
is  the  supreme  chief  of  his  congregation  and  is  not 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other  chief.  There  may 
be  churches  more  or  less  important  than  others,  ac- 
cording to  the  character  of  their  founders  or  the  num- 
ber of  their  followers,  but  each  of  them  will  be  gov- 
erned entirely  independent  of  the  remainder.  It  is 
the  most  federative  aristocracy  that  reigns  in  this 
epoch  of  the  Church. 

Soon,  however,  that  federative  character  will  par- 
tially weaken  to  make  room  for  the  monarchic.7  The 
sees,  in  respect  to  their  founders,  or  the  city  where 
they  are  established,  appear  more  worthy  of  respect 
or  more  suitable  to  treat  ecclesiastical  matters,  will 
claim  individual  privileges  or  will  consider  themselves 
above  the  others,  and  almost  simultaneously  the  metro- 
politan and  the  patriarch  appear.  Already  we  have 
another  link  in  the  great  chain  that  is  to  encircle  the 
vast  Christian  family.  In  the  mystic  ladder  of  the 
pontificate,  the  third  step  will  appear  in  place.  The 
fourth  and  the  most  important  one,  will  be  still  easier 
to  establish.  Anyone  believing  that  the  metropolitan 
and  patriarchs  appeared  clothed  in  all  the  privileges 
which  they  enjoyed  later,  would  fall  into  error.8    Just 

7  Read  Eusebius :    Ecclesiastic  History;    Metropolitans  and 
Patriarchs. 

8  Darwin  :    Evolution  of    Species.      Read  Father   Arintero : 
The  Evolution  of  the  Species,  and  Philosophy. 

11 


144  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

as  in  their  natural  evolution,  the  species  preserve  some 
atavic  traces  of  their  subordinate  and  lower  kinds ;  so 
also  human  institutions  develop,  the  larger  keeping  the 
privileges  of  the  inferior,  and  being  equally  restricted 
by  them.  But  as  in  nature  the  traces  of  the  lower 
species  become  lesser  and  lesser,  while  the  high  dis- 
tinctions predominate  and  become  more  and  more 
typical,  so  also  in  historical  order,  the  high  dignitaries, 
who  in  the  beginning  appear  almost  equal  to  their  im- 
mediate subalterns,  soon  become  distant  from  them, 
throw  off  their  restrictions  and  destroy  their  priv- 
ileges. For  this  reason  the  metropolitan  and  patriarch, 
who  appeared  as  an  equal  among  equals,  and  who 
filled  a  presidential  chair,  as  respectable  as  it  was 
honorable,  will  soon  declare  their  supreme  dignity  and 
greater  jurisdictional  power.  The  same  thing  hap- 
pens in  respect  to  conciliar  assemblies.  While  the  first 
Jerusalem  Council 9  appeared  entirely  democratic,  the 
later  assemblies,  through  the  predominance  of  priests 
and  bishops,  asserted  their  aristocratic  tendencies.  At 
an  epoch  so  far  advanced  as  that  of  St.  Cyprian,  in 
which  the  bishops  and  the  metropolitan  were  already 
well  defined,  the  Church  had  not  yet  been  able  to  en- 
tirely shake  off  the  democratic  element,  for  the  com- 
mon people  had  still  a  voice  in  the  provincial  coun- 
cils.10 

The  sketch  is  now  drawn.  The  Church  will  not  go 
back,  and  just  as  from  democracy  it  passed  on  to  aris- 
tocracy, as  represented  by  the  bishops,  then  to  mon- 

9  Acts  xv.    Eusebius  :    First  Councils. 

10  Edw.  Gibbon :  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
last  chapter  of  the  first  volume. 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     I45 

archy,  as  reflected  by  the  metropolitans  and  patriarchs, 
it  will  go  on  ascending  till  it  reaches  the  imperial 
Caesarism  systematized  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs.  The 
mission  of  the  Popes  becomes  easier  and  simpler.  The 
patriarchs  have  reduced  difficulties  by  taking  the 
bishoprics  under  their  care,  while  in  turn  the  bishoprics 
have  absorbed  the  priests.  The  patriarchs  being  now 
monopolized,  the  whole  Church  is  centralized,  and 
Roman  Caesarism  can  appear.  No  great  astuteness 
is  needed  to  predict  the  victory  for  Rome.  No  Apos- 
tolic See  contains  the  moral  or  historic  prestige,  or 
the  social  elements  that  seem  to  surround  Rome  since 
the  fourth  century,  that  is  to  say,  from  the  time  the 
patriarchate  flourishes.  If  in  such  conflict  Rome  were 
not  victorious,  history  would  contradict  itself,  but 
would  fail  in  its  general  and  evolutive  principles. 

Let  us  examine  the  question  through  the  fairest 
critics,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  balance  will  incline 
towards  Rome,  rather  than  to  any  other  patriarchate. 
At  that  time  the  Roman  See  appears  to  the  eyes  of  all 
believers  as  sanctified  and  fecundated  by  the  blood  of 
innumerable  victims,  especially  by  the  venerable  blood 
of  Peter  and  Paul.  It  is  believed  that  a  congregation 
taught  by  such  sublime  heads  must  preserve  better 
than  any  other  the  trust  of  the  revelation;  that  in  it 
must  be  found  purer  traditions,  holier  examples.  At 
that  time  Rome  appears  like  a  new  Jerusalem.  Had 
not  this  sacred  city  been  destroyed,  had  not  the  com- 
mon people  so  often  dispersed  from  it,  Jerusalem 
could  have  disputed  the  primacy  with  Rome.  For 
there  also  reposed  the  ashes  of  the  illustrious  Stephen ; 
there  ran  also  the  venerable  blood  of  St.  James,  and 


I46  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

again  there  remained  the  memory  of  the  coming  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  meeting  of  the  first  council,  and 
ever  so  many  other  not-to-be-forgotten  traditions.  But 
Jerusalem  was  almost  destroyed  by  the  war,  and  when 
she  tried  to  raise  herself  she  found  herself  preceded 
not  only  by  the  Roman  patriarchate,  but  also  by  the 
Oriental  patriarchs  themselves.  There  remained,  con- 
sequently, only  Rome,  and  in  respect  to  moral  and  his- 
torical prestige,  she  was  in  a  better  position  than  any 
other  patriarchate.  Which  among  them  could  have 
shown  the  tombs  of  two  such  venerable  apostles  as 
Peter  and  Paul  ?  Which  among  them  could  head  and 
sign  their  writings  with  these  august  words:  "Thus 
received  by  us  from  Peter  and  Paul"?  On  questions 
of  dogma  and  morals,  what  other  words,  or  what  other 
names,  could  be  more  eloquent? 

But  here  we  must  determine  the  scope  of  our  words. 
When  we  speak  thus  it  is  not  because  we  believe  that 
the  question  of  whether  Peter  was  in  Rome  or  not  has 
been  entirely  settled.  After  having  read,  as  we  think, 
everything  of  any  importance  written  by  the  Catholics 
on  this  obscure  ^  subject,  after  having  visited  every 
place  supposed  to  have  been  sanctified  by  Peter,  and 
after  having  prayed  before  a  venerable  tomb,  we  do  not 
believe  that  question  so  entirely  exempt  from  doubt  as 
to  say  that  it  can  be  assented  to  as  altogether  certain. 
In  speaking  thus,  we  limit 1X  ourselves  to  the  opinion 
prevalent  at  that  epoch  and  that  century,  which  can  be 
affirmed  as  positive,  namely,  that  at  that  time  every 
one  believed  that  Peter  had  been  in  Rome,  and  there 

"This   was   the  belief   of    St.   Jerome,    St.   Augustine,    St. 
Basil,  St.  Chrysostom,  etc. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  147 

died.  If  any  Romanist  believes  there  is  any  contra- 
diction between  this  categorical  affirmation  and  our 
own  doubts,  we  would  reply  to  him:  Go  to  Spain, 
compare  the  most  ancient  and  venerable  traditions,  ex- 
amine all  their  historians  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  Middle  Ages;  examine  foreign  historians 
of  those  same  times,  and  you  will  find  them  all  as  one., 
in  affirming  that  St.  James  the  Elder  was  there  a 
long  time.  The  history  of  Spain,  its  edifices,  its  re- 
ligious worships,  are  alike  saturated  with  said  tradi- 
tion, and  yet  what  historian  would  venture  in  the  midst 
of  the  twentieth  century,  to  give  out  as  a  certainty 
the  going  of  St.  James  to  Spain  and  his  staying 
there?12 

One  may  state  a  tradition  generally  believed  of 
some  known  epoch,  yet  the  principle  on  which  it  is 
based  may  nevertheless  be  doubtful ;  but  for  our  pur- 
pose we  are  satisfied  that  it  was  so  admitted,  and  in 
effect  it  was  so  believed  in  those  times.  To  this  moral 
and  historic  prestige,  in  itself  very  worthy  of  con- 
sideration, must  be  added  another  very  potent  social 
reason.  With  or  without  the  emperors  13  Rome  con- 
tinued to  be  the  head  of  the  empire.  There  was  situ- 
ated the  Roman  consulate  and  the  imperial  magistracy. 
From  there  the  laws  emanated.  There,  converged  all 
the  important  means  of  communication.  Rome  was 
the  supreme  city  in  all  those  centuries.14     This  is  so 

12  Read  Natal  Alexander :  Ecclesiastic  History.  Baronio, 
Rohrbacher,  Hergenrother :  Ecclesiastical  History,  about  St. 
James. 

18  Gibbon :    Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

14  Read  Gibbon :  Same  heading,  about  Constantine  and  his 
close  successors. 


I48  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

potent  a  reason  that  she  alone  in  the  long  run  could 
determine  centralization.  Look,  for  instance,  at  Con- 
stantinople. Her  see  does  not  possess  the  moral  or 
historic  prestige  of  Rome.  No  apostle  ever  established 
it,  and  it  was  only  because  the  emperor  of  the  Orient 
habitually  resided  there,  that  Constantinople  carried 
the  other  sees  immediately  after  her,  and  proclaimed 
herself  superior  to  the  other  patriarchates.  Add  to 
Rome  this  same  reason,  and  you  will  appreciate  that  it 
was  logical  and  conformable  with  the  general  laws  of 
history  that  centralization  should  appear  in  Rome,  and 
the  patriarchal  sees  should  there  by  preference  become 
consolidated. 

To  these  two  most  weighty  causes  a  third  must  be 
added,  namely,  the  question  of  the  appeals.  Starting 
with  the  third  century,  the  Orient  lives  in  a  continu- 
ous theological  agitation.  Dogmatic  disputes  multi- 
ply with  astounding  rapidity,  and  as  a  consequence, 
excommunications  and  removals  from  office  follow 
each  other  in  great  number.15  There  are  historical 
epochs  in  which  patriarchs  and  bishops  live  entirely  in 
constituted  parties,  one  against  the  other,  bishops  and 
patriarchs  excommunicating  and  removing  from  office 
each  other  with  frightening  ease.  Confusion  and  dis- 
order invade  everything  in  the  Orient,  and  yet  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  the  Patriarch  of  the  Occident,  is  en- 
joying the  peaceful  possession  of  his  pontificate.  In 
the  Occident  there  were  fewer  and  much  less  important 
heresies.    Everything  turned  toward  Rome  as  a  much 

"Eusebius:  Ecclesiastic  History;  First  Centuries.  Fleury, 
Rohrbacher  and  Rivas :  Ecclesiastic  History  about  the  First 
Centuries. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  I49 

more  impartial  and  venerable  center.  Consequently 
the  appeals  to  Rome  became  very  frequent.  Taking 
this  circumstance  as  their  standing  ground,  the  Roman- 
ists claim  to  base  upon  it  their  most  powerful  argu- 
ment in  defense  of  the  Papacy.16 

We  have  already  said  that  this  could  in  no  way 
prove  the  divine  origin  of  such  primacy,  and  we 
might,  therefore,  pass  on :  nevertheless,  we  prefer  to 
dispel  the  reasons  which,  as  we  have  seen,  do  not 
emanate  from  the  apostles,  and,  therefore,  do  not  exist, 
but  are  pretexts.  Only  through  ignorance  of  history 
and  lack  of  theological  acumen  can  Romanism  have 
attached  so  much  importance  to  a  circumstance  that  is 
merely  a  historical  phenomenon  like  any  other,  purely 
human.  A  falling  man  clings  to  anything  he  can,  to 
recover  his  footing.  In  the  Orient  the  fallen  ones 
were  so  numerous,  had  so  little  faith  in  their  claims 
at  home,  because  those  that  could  help  them  were  their 
opponents,  that  one  cannot  wonder  at  the  great  num- 
ber of  their  appeals  to  Rome.  As  an  evident  proof 
that  what  we  are  stating  is  the  truth,  the  same 
phenomenon  produces  the  same  effects  in  the  Occident, 
although  on  a  smaller  scale,  because  the  occasions  are 
less  frequent.17  Rome  condemns  Felician  and  Nova- 
tus,  and  these  appeal  from  Rome  to  Carthage.  St. 
Cyprian  is  condemned  in  the  Occident  by  the  Patri- 
arch of  Rome,  and  Cyprian,  the  great  Cyprian,  whom 

18  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons :  Faith  of  Our  Fathers ;  Su- 
premacy, Infallibility  of  the  Popes.  Also  consult  such  au- 
thors as  Rohrbacher,  Rivas,  about  the  epoch  of  heresies  of 
Occident  and  their  insignificant  importance. 

17  Edw.  Gibbon :  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire ; 
last  chapter  of  the  first  volume. 


I50  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

some  Romanists  consider  as  one  of  their  own,  does 
not  scruple  to  appeal  to  the  Orient  against  the  Occi- 
dent. As  may  be  seen,  the  phenomenon  is  general, 
and  for  those  who  know  how  to  read  history,  it  has 
no  more  meaning  than  that  the  fallen  look  to  recover 
themselves,  no  matter  how.  On  the  other  hand  here 
is  a  consideration  that  we  venture  to  submit  to  the 
profound  theological  learning  of  Cardinal  Gibbons; 
examine  the  spirit  of  the  appeals  and  consultations, 
and  the  admissions  and  answers  of  the  first  Popes, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  what  principally  moves  both, 
is  the  belief  that  the  Roman  Church  keeps  less  corrupt 
the  doctrines  of  the  apostles.  It  seems  as  if  the  ex- 
istence of  their  memorable  bodies  was  looked  upon  as 
a  kind  of  mystic  preserving  salt.18  More  than  the 
personality  of  the  Pope  there  appears  the  Roman  col- 
lectivity, the  doctrine  professed  in  Rome,  the  Roman 
religious  atmosphere.  It  is  not  their  belief  in  the  ex- 
istence there,  of  a  person  endowed  with  infallibility, 
which  belief  will  take  shape  much  later,  but  that  in 
Rome,  owing  to  the  apostolic  example,  and  to  the  apos- 
tolic teachings,  error  becomes  less  likely.  Let  us  illus- 
trate this  doctrine  by  some  examples.  Even  now  when 
the  Franciscan  desires  to  revive  his  spirit  he  has  re- 
course to  Assisi  and  to  Alvernia.  He  must  believe 
that  there,  the  surroundings  are  filled  with  the  spirit 
of  his  patriarch;  that  those  fathers  living  where  their 
chief  lived,  that  those  houses  inhabited  in  former  times 
by  him,  those  craggy  grounds  over  which  Francis 
walked,  those  meadows  trod  by  him,  that  heaven  con- 

18  Read  St.  Athanasius  of  Alexandria:    St.  Ignatius,  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  I5I 

templated  by  him,  in  short,  that  everything  must  con- 
tribute to  keep  purer  and  more  genuine  their  spirit. 
The  Jesuit  still  repaires  to  the  holy  cave  of  Manresa 
to  the  novitiate  of  Loyola,  and  listens  with  ecstasy  to 
the  marvels  related  to  him  of  his  illustrious  father,  by 
his  brothers  who  live  there.  He  questions  and  con- 
sults them,  believing  that  there,  better  than  elsewhere, 
must  be  reflected  the  legitimate  Ignatian  spirit.  It 
may  be  said  that  the  Franciscan  and  the  Jesuit  be- 
lieve that  their  brethren  are  endowed  with  some  ex- 
traordinary privilege.  No,  what  they  do  believe  is 
that  in  those  places  better  than  in  others,  on  account 
of  the  local  conditions,  it  is  more  difficult  to  falsify 
or  lose  the  genuine  spirit  of  their  founders. 

Our  case  is  simply  analogous.  Rome  is  applied  to, 
not  because  it  is  believed  that  the  Roman  Patriarch 
possesses  any  personal  virtues  that  others  do  not  pos- 
sess, but  because  the  circumstances  attending  the  first 
differ  from  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  sec- 
ond.19 As  anyone  can  see,  these  two  questions  are 
very  distinct :  One,  to  apply  to  Rome,  because  there 
the  true  doctrine  is  believed  to  be  kept ;  the  other, 
to  apply  to  Rome,  because  there  exists  a  Pontiff  who 
is  believed  to  be  gifted  with  the  divine  prerogative  of 
infallibility.  To  mix  up  the  two  questions,  and  to 
pass  from  one  to  the  other,  will  be  easy  to  the  be- 
liever, but  to  the  learned,  this  is  prohibited  by  logic 
and  by  history.  Looking  into  history  impartially  and 
minutely,  it  is  understandable  and  explainable  how 
the  centralization  of  power  should  take  place  in  Rome 

19  Study  the  body  of  this  chapter  on  the  appeal  to  Rome  in 
the  first  centuries,  where  this  affirmation  is  well  defined. 


152  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

and  under  the  safeguard  of  the  Occidental  patriarch 
and  for  his  own  benefit.  Even  more,  if  there  had 
not  occurred  any  disagreement  between  the  German 
Empire  and  the  Papacy;  if  the  scandalous  schisms 
of  the  Occident,  that  so  greatly  weakened  Roman 
prestige,  had  not  issued  forth  when  they  did,  then 
infallibility  would  have  been  reached  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  instead  of  in  the  nineteenth.20  Without  these 
two  circumstances,  everything  would  have  been  bet- 
ter prepared  for  it  then  than  in  later  times,  because 
of  a  perfectly  accomplished  centralization.  The  mod- 
ern doctrine  about  the  Pope,  being  due  to  the  issuance 
of  the  False  Decretals,  and  especially  to  the  writings 
of  St.  Thomas21  and  St.  Bonaventure,  were  success- 
fully taught  everywhere.  But  these  two  facts  mili- 
tated so  deeply  against  Roman  prestige,  especially  the 
schisms,  that  not  even  in  the  nineteenth  century  was 
it  possible  to  arrive  at  a  peaceful  and  universal  agree- 
ment. 

Anyone  knowing  well  what  occurred  at  the  Vatican 
Council,  will  have  still  another  proof  of  how  very 
human  was  the  said  prerogative,  and  how  true  are  the 
principles  that  led  us  to  combat  it.  For  the  common 
people,  who  generally  know  by  halves  or  not  at  all, 
the  things  ecclesiastical,  the  Vatican  Council  conceives 
something  like  a  pastoral  idyl,  similar  to  the  Apostles' 
Cenacle  when  the  Holy  Ghost  descended;  and  as  if  in 
the  most  solemn  moments,  given  to  voting  and  defini- 

20  Read  Rohrbacher,  Baronio,  Rivas,  Alzog,  in  reference  to 
the  schisms  of  Occident  and  differences  between  the  Empire 
and  the  Papacy. 

21  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bonaventure :  About  the  Pope ;  spe- 
cially the  latter. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 53 

tion,  there  supervened  a  terrible  storm,  the  thunder 
sounded  with  a  crash  and  clamor  seldom  heard  in 
Rome,  and  as  the  lightning  with  its  sinister  brilliancy 
illumined  the  timorous  and  pallid  faces  of  the  reverend 
members  of  the  Council,  they  have  claimed  to  see  an- 
other proof  that  that  was  a  manifest  symbol  of  the 
visible  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.22  How  many 
clergymen  believe  it  was  so !  In  our  numerous  ex- 
cursions about  towns  and  villages,  we  have  heard  such 
tales  narrated  with  sincere  candor  and  enjoyment  by 
wearers  of  the  cassock.  History  relates  that  when  John 
Huss  23  found  himself  close  to  the  blaze  in  which  he 
was  to  die,  he  saw  coming  a  poor  old  woman  panting 
and  hurrying  to  throw  a  small  bundle  of  wood  on  the 
flames.  That  unfortunate  man,  worthy  of  a  better 
name,  then  exclaimed:  0  sancta  simplicitas!  (O  holy 
simplicity!)  That  is  what  the  true  historian  should 
answer  to  those  innocent  enthusiasts,  in  their  earnest- 
ness to  see  in  the  lightning  and  in  the  thunder  the 
beneficent  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  it  were  said 
that  the  outer  storm  were  symbolical  of  the  storm 
within;  if  it  were  said  that  the  atmospheric  com- 
motions wc  e  but  a  pale  reflection  of  the  moral  con- 
vulsions t!  at  inwardly  agitated  the  members  of  the 
Council,  one  would  have  not  perhaps  a  historical  con- 
clusion, but  a  rhetorical  figure  to  depict  graphically 
the  eventful,  turbulent  ar.d  stormy  Vatican  Council ! 24 
As  history  goes,  the  bishops  might  be  classified  by 

22Mateos  Gagos :  Chronicles  of  the  Vatican  Council.  Cua- 
drado:    About  the  Vatican  Council. 

28Castelar:  Revolucion  Religiosa;  Ejecucion  de  St.  Juan 
de  Huss. 

24  Mateos,  Gagos  and  Cuadrado :    Same  hea  Is. 


154  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

nationalities.25  The  Germans  opposed  definition  with 
all  their  strength.  They  were  followed  by  more  than 
half  the  Austrians  and  Hungarians.  All  the  French, 
without  exception,  not  only  avoided  the  definition  but 
headed  the  opposition  and  organized  the  fight  against 
it.  As  an  ornament  to  this  great  army  there  were  the 
American  prelates,  who  also  were  unanimous  in  their 
resistance  to  dogmatic  definition.  The  Spaniards,  to 
a  man,  were  in  favor  of  it.  Though  it  may  not  be 
very  flattering  to  say  so,  the  love  of  truth  in  the 
Spaniard  is  above  false  patriotism.  How  different 
was  the  Spanish  Episcopate  of  Trent  from  the  Vati- 
can ! 26  That  episcopate,  with  a  fortitude  that  does 
it  honor,  with  a  profound  and  practical  wisdom  that 
ennobles  it,  faces  the  Vaticanists  and  tells  them :  Your 
abuses  and  exaggerations  are  the  cause  of  the  Protest- 
ant reform.  Our  principal  task  must  be  to  correct 
you,  and  mend  you  first,  and  afterward  to  resolve  the 
dogmatic  questions.  And  so  great  was  the  persistence 
cf  the  Spanish  episcopate,  and  so  great  the  resistance 
cf  the  Vaticanists  (of  whom  it  may  be  said  in  pass- 
ing that  it  flatters  them  greatly  to  correct  others,  but 
they  never  submit  to  self-correction),  that  the  Council 
cf  Trent  was  near  breaking  away  and  producing  a 
schism.  What  a  great  change  for  the  worse  has  taken 
place  in  the  language  of  the  Spanish  episcopate  at  the 
Vatican,  compared  with  the  language  employed  by  the 
immortal   Bishop   of   the   Canaries,   Melchor    Cano.27 

25  Same  authors  and  heads  mentioned. 

26  Rivas :  Lecciones  de  Historia  Eclesiastica  (Ecclesiastic 
History's  Teachings);  the  same  head.  Hergenrother :  Same 
head. 

27  Read   the   manuscripts    referring   to    Philip    II,    National 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 55 

He  was  the  illustrious  author  of  the  best  modern 
theological  treatise,  the  first  who  knew  how  to  pre- 
sent religion  in  a  systematized  form,  the  science  of 
history,  philosophy  and  theology.28  This  author,  who 
was  also  one  of  the  most  learned  theologians  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  used  to  say  to  the  king,  Philip  II, 
one  of  the  most  fervent  and  pious  of  monarchs :  "We 
cured  Babylon,  but  she  did  not  heal  ( Curavimus  Baby- 
loncm  ct  lion  est  sanata).  Let  us  give  her  up!" 
"Babylon"  is  the  Vatican;  reform  is  the  cure  at- 
tempted at  Trent;  the  result  is  that  the  Vatican  re- 
mains as  before.  And,  continued  that  learned  author, 
in  his  official  report  "The  Vatican  could  only  be  cor- 
rected by  famine.  Its  epicurean  dignitaries  are  more 
sensitive  to  physical  pain  than  to  the  evils  of  the 
faith.  Let  no  one  send  one  cent  of  money  to  Rome. 
Let  the  monarchy  take  the  proceeds  of  the  annats,  or 
yearly  income,  benefices,  patronages,  and  so  forth,  and 
Your  Majesty  will  see  how  promptly  Rome  softens 
and  enters  on  the  right  road."  And  he  would  still 
add  something  by  saying  that  the  Pope  without  his 
cap  on,  could  also  be  slapped.29 

Many  other  weighty  declarations  are  made  in  the 
same  report  by  that  most  energetic  of  bishops  and 
wisest  of  theologians  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  the 
greatest  believer  and  most  pious  of  kings.  What  a 
difference  between  the  language  of  one  and  that  of 

Library  of  Spain ;  also  can  be  read,  Menendez  Pelavos : 
Heterodoxos,  which  is  a  complete  extract. 

28  Menendez  Pelayo :  Lugares  Teologicos,  which  is  the  first 
of  its  class. 

29  These  and  other  affirmations  can  be  read  in  the  same 
author  and  book  cited  on  28. 


I56  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  other,  between  one's  conduct  and  the  other's,  and 
— why  not  say  it? — between  one  kind  of  learning  and 
the  other!  The  Spanish  bishops  were  followed  by 
nearly  all  the  Italians,  the  South  American,  and  by 
small  numbers  from  other  places.30  So  that  on  one 
side,  sound  independence  is  represented  by  the  Ameri- 
cans ;  historic  and  exegetical  theology  by  the  Germans ; 
sociological  philosophy  and  practical  sense  are  mir- 
rored by  French  and  Austrians;  and  facing  them 
servile  Italians,  poorly  educated  Spaniards,  and  hum- 
ble people  from  the  south  and  other  places. 

Alas !  Had  not  Jesuitism  played  so  important  a 
role,  had  not  that  Jesuitism,  which  never  bends  before 
the  Pope,  nor  before  Congregations  when  they  resolve 
anything  against  it,  displayed  so  much  energy,  we 
should  not  have  yet  an  infallible  Pope !  And  to  those 
who  are  incapable  of  divining  the  diabolical  Jesuitical 
machinations  their  conduct  must  appear  false  and  con- 
tradictory ;  but  it  was  highly  practical  for  the  purposes 
they  have  conceived,  and  constantly  pursue,  namely: 
absolute  predominance  over  the  other  orders,  and 
vengeance  against  the  episcopate,  that  did  them  so 
much  harm  by  their  expulsion.31     They  began  by  re- 

^Mateos  Gagos :  Cronicas  del  Concilio  Vaticano  (Chroni- 
cles of  the  Vatican  Council). 

31  Concerning  this  point  see  report  of  the  Spanish  Episco- 
pate, opposed  to  the  Jesuits  in  answer  to  some  questions  of 
Minister  Aranda.  Some  portions  of  it  may  be  seen  in  the 
Spanish  Heterodox,  by  Mr.  Menendez  Palayo.  In  the  nu- 
merous disputes  that  Jesuitism  had  with  the  Papacy,  the  for- 
mer always  ignored  the  latter.  For  instance,  on  the  all-impor- 
tant question  concerning  the  venerable  Palafox,  Rome  decided 
in  favor  of  the  latter,  but  even  now  Jesuitism  continues  vili- 
fying him.  On  the  abominable  and  scandalous  questions  be- 
tween   St.    Joseph,    of    Calazans,    and   Father    Piedra    Santa, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 57 

striding  the  time  of  the  meetings,  to  limit  the  duration 
of  the  addresses,  so  that  the  opposition  had  only  the 
shortest  time  possible  at  their  disposal.  The  flattery 
of  the  Papists,  and  promises  to  them  became  visibly 
conspicuous,  as  did  the  scorn  and  hidden  threats 
against  the  opponents : 32  rumors  went  the  length  of 
saying  that  the  Pope  was  willing  to  decree  infallibility 
with  the  council  or  without  it ;  it  was  even  said  that  if 
infallibility  was  not  voted  for,  by  a  certain  date,  a 
papal  bull  would  be  issued  proclaiming  it,  and  dis- 
solving the  council.  What  was  the  opposition  to  do 
under  those  circumstances?  Proclaim  the  schism? 
Declare  itself  in  open  rebellion?  That  would  have 
caused  an  immense  evil.  There  was  no  other  decj- 
rous  remedy,  but  an  energetic,  though  dumb,  protest, 
and  such  a  step  was  taken.33  The  more  conspicuous 
members  of  the  council  commenced  to  depart  one  by 
one,  so  as  not  to  soil  their  hands  by  affixing  their 
signatures  to  what  was  contrary  to  their  convictions, 
and  they  awaited  the  event  in  their  respective  dioceses, 
announcing  to  them  the  finalization  of  the  catastrophe. 

Jesuit,  Rome  decided  in  favor  of  the  former,  but  even  now 
Jesuitism  seeks  to  pall  the  judgment  by  endeavoring  to  be- 
atify a  man  who  acted  as  a  veritable  monster  of  iniquity.  On 
the  memorable  questions  of  idolatrous  worship,  and  that  of 
Cardinal  Noris,  notwithstanding  Benedict  XIV's  threats  of 
excommunication  against  the  obstinate  Jesuits,  the  latter  even 
now  claim  to  have  right  with  them.  In  the  last  political  con- 
troversies among  the  Spaniards  the  General  of  the  Jesuits 
deceived  Leo  XIII  by  agreeing  to  and  signing  a  public"  docu- 
ment which  he  afterward  commanded  his  subordinates  to 
disobey.  Consult  The  Jesuits  at  Home,  by  the  learned  ex- 
Jesuit,  Father  Mir;  Beatification  and  Canonization  Process, 
by  St.  Joseph  of  Calazans,  and  Crisis  of  the  Order  of  Jesuits, 
by  Pey  Ordeix. 

32  Mateos  Gagos'  previously  mentioned  work. 

33  Same  author  and  head. 


I58  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Three  other  bishops  raised  a  protest  after  the  act  had 
been  signed,  by  saying  that  they  could  not  believe  in 
a  dogma  that  seemed  to  them  false,  but  their  protest 
was  not  heard,  not  respected.  The  Pope  approved 
what  had  been  done  and  thundered  the  most  tremen- 
dous excommunications  against  those  who  had  not  im- 
mediately submitted  to  the  infallibility.34  There  you 
have,  kind  reader,  the  historical  and  ecclesiastical 
origin  of  what  is  called  infallibility.  In  the  next 
chapter  you  will  see  explained  the  dangers  it  contains 
for  the  Church  itself.  In  this  chapter  you  will  have 
seen  that  it  is  a  thing  entirely  human,  commenced  by 
social  necessities  and  consummated  by  the  uncon- 
trollable eagerness  of  the  Popes  to  command,  trampling 
under  foot  the  independence  of  the  conciliar  Fathers, 
and  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  in  order  to  obtain  it. 

34  Pius  IX  :    Bull  promulgating  the  Council. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

BEWILDERING    AND    FATAL    CONDITION    OF    THE    ROMAN 

CHURCH,  SUBSEQUENT  TO  THE  PONTIFICAL 

INFALLIBILITY. 

AS  His  Eminence  Cardinal  Gibbons  can  see,  by 
the  title  of  this  chapter,  far  from  believing-  that 
the  infallibilty  is  of  any  advantage  to  the  Church, 
we  consider  it  not  only  anti-biblical  and  anti-historical, 
as  demonstrated  in  the  preceding  chapters,  but  also 
anti-social  and  rash  in  the  highest  degree.  Such 
rashness  can  destroy  all  the  religious  edifice,  and  de- 
molish at  one  stroke  the  whole  of  religion. 

We  are  aware  of  the  weight  of  such  an  assertion, 
and  without  the  potent  reasons  in  our  possession  mak- 
ing it  possible  to  demonstrate  such  an  assertion,  we 
certainly  would  not  venture  to  launch  it  forth.  The 
Pope  is  as  much  subject  to  human  infirmities  as  any 
plain  mortal.1  Sin  may  invade  his  conscience,  as  any 
other  Christian  conscience.  Now,  among  the  sins  that 
a  Pope  may  commit,  is  the  sin  of  heresy  and  infidelity : 
that  is  to  say,  a  Pope  can  be  as  heretical  as  any  other 
Christian.2    I  know  there  are  authors  who  deny  3  such 

1  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons :  Faith  of  Our  Fathers.  Hettin- 
ger and  Casanova:  Fundamental  Theology;  head,  Infalli- 
bility of  the  Popes.  Perrone,  Schouppe,  Hurter:  Theology; 
same  head. 

2  S.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio  :  Pope.  Cardinal  Vives  :  Com- 
pendium of  Canon  Law,  on  the  election  of  Pope.  Jaugey : 
Same  work ;    head,  Pope. 

3  Augustine  P.  Fernandez:    Teologia  Dogmatica,  about  the 

12  (159) 


l6o  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

a  possibility,  but  they  are  few  in  number  and  of  little 
importance.  The  apotheosis  of  the  Pontiff  has  not 
been  reached  yet,  although,  as  we  shall  see  later,  the 
road  has  already  commenced  to  be  opened.  However 
distasteful  this  may  appear  to  Romanists,  the  flower 
and  the  most  select  Roman  authors  proclaim,  that 
heresy  may  be  incurred  by  any  Pope,  and  also  that  a 
Pope  may  be  unfaithful.  And  if  such  a  case  super- 
vened, Cardinal  Gibbons,  what  means  has  Romanism 
to  avoid  total  ruin  and  self-destruction?  The  Roman- 
ists are  wont  to  answer  with  charming  candor,  with 
astounding  simplicity :  "Ah !  in  such  a  case  he  would 
cease  to  be  Pope,  in  such  a  case  he  would  be  ex- 
pelled from  the  Church."  4  But  how  can  he  be  ex- 
pelled and  by  whom?  According  to  your  doctrine 
the  Pope  is  unimpeachable ; 5  neither  a  bishop  nor 
an  assembly  of  bishops;  neither  the  cardinal,  nor  a 
meeting  of  cardinals;  neither  the  Church  singly  nor 
an  ecumenic  council  of  churches,  can  resolve  anything 
about  the  inviolable  person  of  the  Pontiff.6  If  the 
whole  of  them  are  something  with  him,  without  him 
they  are  nothing,  absolutely  nothing.  Can  nothing- 
ness rise,  and  judge  him,  who  is  something?  If  the 
Pope  is  a  heretic,  and  as  such,  wishes  to  destroy  the 

Infallibility  of  the  Pope.  The  Romans  thought  so  much  of 
this  work  that  they  published  a  special  edition  and  recom- 
mended it  very  strongly  in  Spain. 

*Read  S.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio.  Cardinal  Vives:  On 
the  subject  of  the  Pope. 

e  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  of  Canon  Law.  Bertier : 
Compendium  of  Theology ;  the  Pope.  Vives :  Dogmatic  The- 
ology; The  Pope. 

6  Read  Encyclical  of  Pius  IX  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Vatican 
Council.  Also  read  Casanova,  Fernandez,  Jaugey,  speaking 
of  the  Pope. 


CAPITULATING    EEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  l6l 

Church,  by  what  means  does  Romanism  expect  to  save 
itself  from  the  final  catastrophe?  We  do  not  know 
whether  Your  Eminence  has  ever  pondered  over  this 
serious  question ;  but  we  can  assure  Your  Eminence, 
that  it  occurred  to  us  at  the  moment  we  had  thorough- 
ly grasped  the  subject  of  infallibility  and  its  conse- 
quences, and  found  no  satisfactory  answer. 

To  expect  the  intervention  of  Providence  by  some 
miracle,  may  be  a  very  simple  matter  for  the  illiterate 
believer;  but  this  is  anti-rational  and  anti-theological 
for  anyone  who  looks  upon  things  with  impartial  and 
scientific  judgment.  God  might  answer  to  afflicted 
Romanism:  "Fearest  thou  the  idol  thou  didst  raise 
without  my  consent  shall  fall  on  thy  shoulders? 
Fearest  thou  that  its  fall  will  crush  thee?  Thou 
shouldst  have  thought  before,  as  thou  couldst  have 
done  with  the  help  of  my  Holy  Books  and  thy  own 
^reason."  It  is  anti-theological  because  theology  bars 
the  miracle,  if  there  is  no  need  of  it.  And  again  we 
ask,  If  such  a  case  supervenes,  what  means  has  Roman- 
ism to  avoid  its  total  ruin?  To  believe  that  the 
Church  can  throw  off  the  Pope,  is  the  greatest  of 
absurdities  and  contradictions.7  To  suppose  that  this 
Pope  wishes  to  go  of  his  own  accord,  before  he  is 
thrown  out,  is  the  most  foolish  simplicity  and  a  con- 
tradiction of  history.8  Why,  there  is  no  one  who 
clings  to  his  home  as  does  the  Pope  to  his  See.     Ex- 

7  Besides  the  latter  authors,  read  Ferraris,  Botiix :  who  dem- 
onstrated that  not  a  legal  way  could  be  found. 

8  Read  Rohrbacher,  Baronio,  Rivas  and  Cesar  Cantu,  regard- 
ing the  schisms  of  the  Occidents,  and  you  can  see  how  hard 
the  great  many  antipodes  fought  for  their  See.  The  old 
saying  of  John  Huss  is  well  applied  here,  in  which  he  states 
"They  look  like  three  mad  dogs  fighting  for  a  bone." 


l62  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

cepting  one  who  history  tells  us  was  deceived,  and 
abdicated,  and  expiated  his  foolishness  in  a  dungeon 
where  his  successor  lodged  him,  otherwise  a  Pope  to 
be  removed  would  have  to  be  swept  out  of  the  Vatican 
as  is  done  with  obnoxious  insects.  But  who  would  be 
the  first  to  hold, the  broom  and  dare  say:  "At  him!" 
There  exists  a  fable  well  known  in  all  civilized 
nations  and  translated  almost  in  every  language,  that 
fits  our  case.  Wishing  to  be  freed  from  the  butchery 
caused  by  a  cat,  among  certain  rats  it  occurred  to  a 
very  old  rat  who  knew  the  cat  well,  that  the  best 
thing  to  do  would  be  to  attach  a  bell  to  the  cat.  All 
thought  the  idea  excellent.  They  received  the  sugges- 
tion with  frantic  rejoicing;  but  when  a  third  rat  reap- 
peared with  the  bell,  and  put  the  question,  "Which  one 
of  you  dare  attach  the  bell  to  the  cat?"  they  all  with- 
drew sad  and  crestfallen,  with  the  final  result  that  the 
cat  ended  by  exterminating  them  all.  That  is  also  the 
question  in  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Pope  falls  into 
heresy.  Who  will  dare  attach  the  bell  to  the  cat? 
Who  will  dare  cry  out :  "The  Pope  is  a  heretic !  Out 
with  him"?  None  of  the  rats  in  the  fable  dared,  be- 
cause it  meant  certain  death;  none  of  the  common 
people  will  dare,  because  each  one  of  them  knows  that 
his  moral  death  will  immediately  be  decreed,  and  that 
if  the  Pope  enjoyed  temporal  power  beside  excom- 
munication, he  would  expiate  his  insolence  at  the 
stake,  as  happened  to  Savonarola 9  for  denouncing 
as  he  did  the  crimes  of  a  Pope  which  were  an  affront 
against  humanity  and  well  known  to  the  general 
public.      Granting,   therefore,   infallibility,   Romanism 

9  Read  Rivas  about  Savonarola. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  163 

has  no  remedy  but  to  perish,  if  ever  a  heretic  Pope 
should  occupy  Peter's  chair,  and  as  this  is  possible, 
the  danger  of  destruction  which  threatens  Romanism 
since  the  passage  of  infallibility  is  also  probable. 
Again,  no  Pope  10  is  exempt  from  human  infirmities ; 
among  these,  there  is  partial  insanity  and  there  is  total 
madness.  If  this  supervenes,  what  is  to  be  done  with 
an  insane  or  mad  Pope?  Shall  he  continue  managing 
and  governing  the  Church?  Can  Your  Eminence  con- 
ceive the  holiest  and  greatest  institution  in  the  hands 
of  a  madman?  Is  it  understandable  that  the  supreme 
head  of  the  whole  Church,  who  appoints  cardinals  and 
bishops,  who  binds  and  unbinds,  according  to  justice 
and  charity  all  the  weightiest  questions,  can  perform 
so  complex,  grave  and  august  a  mission,  being  mad, 
insane  or  decrepit?  And  if  that  accident  happens11 
and  you  gentlemen,  including  Your  Eminence,  under- 
stand and  admit  such  a  possibility,  what  must  be  done 
with  an  insane  and  mad  Pope?  He  shall  be  dismissed 
and  another  shall  be  elected.  But  how  and  by  whom  ? 
Have  you  not  raised  the  Pope  above  all  human  judg- 
ment? Why  appeal  afterward  to  that  very  Church 
that  you  have  tied  hand  and  foot,  and  delivered  to 
the  Pope,  as  if  it  were  a  plain  thing  that  he  can  un- 
make and  dash  to  pieces  ?  12     In  such  cases  there  is 

10  Read  any  of  the  authors  mentioned  on  the  subject  of  In- 
fallibility. 

11  Read  the  authors  above  mentioned,  and  specially  Cardinal 
Antonelli,  on  his  written  statement  to  Pope  Pius  VI.  He 
clearly  states  that  Clement  XIV  was  insane.  Cardinal  Paca 
was  of  the  same  opinion,  and  he  adds  that  Pius  VII  was  also 
in  danger  of  becoming  insane.  This  was  also  the  opinion  of 
Cardinal  Gonsalbi. 

12  Read  Encyclical  of  Pius  IX  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Vatican 
Council. 


164  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

no  remedy  whatsoever,  according  to  your  doctrine, 
except  to  stand  by  the  insane  Pope,  and  put  up  with 
his  madness.  To  say  anything  else  would  be  to  con- 
tradict yourselves,  and  to  demolish  what  it  has  cost 
you  so  much  to  construct. 

Therefore,  infallibility,  instead  of  being  so  inesti- 
mable a  boon  as  Your  Eminence  believes,  is  a  most 
grave  danger,  it  is  the  sword  of  Damocles  forever 
threatening  to  fall  upon  Romanism  and  to  kill  it.  Let 
us  suppose  another  thing,  that  the  Pontiff  be  stricken 
with  a  general  paralysis,  which  unfits  him  for  per- 
forming any  rational  act.  What  is  to  be  done  then 
with  the  Pope?  Would  he  have  to  be  sent  to  some 
papal  infirmary  while  another  is  put  in  his  place? 
Would  he  be  given,  as  is  done  with  the  Bishops,  an 
assistant  ?  But  how  and  by  whom  ?  Where  13  is  there 
record  of  the  Church  possessing  such  privileges  since 
it  has  entirely  capitulated  before  the  Pope,  since  the 
latter  has  wrested  from  it  all  the  rights  it  might  in- 
voke ?  Let  us  go  further :  Imagine  that  the  Pope,  as 
happens  sometimes  with  some  prelates,  lives  to  such 
an  age  that  it  may  become  physiologically  impossible 
for  him  to  think  and  reason  sensibly  and  rationally,  or 
that  he  enters  his  dotage.  What  must  we  do  with  him  ? 
Shall  his  ramblings  be  respected  as  mandates  from 
heaven?  Who  will  dare  deny  that  any  of  these  com- 
mon accidents  may  overtake  the  Pope,  especially  the 
last  accident?  Some  evil  tongues  say  that  in  his  last 
days,  Leo  XIII  had  already  commenced  to  be  irrational, 
as   generally  happens  to  old  people   at  his  age.     If 

13  Comment :  The  Encyclical  of  Pius  IX  and  the  canon  of 
the  Vatican  Council. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  l6$ 

heresy  supervene,  madness,  paralysis  or  dotage,  what 
will  be  done  with  the  prerogative  of  infallibility? 
Shall  we  continue  believing  that  a  heretic  who  is  out 
of  the  Church,  must  manage  the  Church?  That  a 
madman  who  is  incapable  of  performing  any  rational 
act,  can  be  at  the  head  of  the  most  universal  and  com- 
plicated government?  That  a  paralytic,  with  general 
paralysis,  unfit  to  perform  any  act,  can  guide  the 
greatest  and  most  difficult  of  human  government? 
Shall  we  quietly  trust  to  one  who  raves  on  matters 
as  delicate  as  are  those  of  our  conscience,  and  the 
weightiest  questions  as  are  those  of  our  faith? 

And  if  the  thought  alone  of  this  arouses  us,  we 
ask  again:  What  means  has  Romanism  to  deliver 
itself  from  the  immense  and  irrefutable  evils  that  an 
accident  of  this  nature,  a  probable  one  according  to 
Romanism's  own14  teachings,  may  bring  to  it?  We 
believe  we  know  the  best  Roman  theologians  and 
canonists,  and  we  answer  frankly  that  there  is  no  ade- 
quate reply  to  this  question.  We  respectfully  chal- 
lenge Your  Eminence  to  give  us  a  satisfactory  one  if 
it  exists.  If  there  is  none,  we  repeat,  What  shall  we 
reply  to  heresy,  and  to  error,  when  we  find  ourselves 
in  any  of  these  conditions,  as  unfortunate  as  they  are 
probable?  Shall  we  cross  our  arms  (before  heresy 
and  error)  and  say  to  them:  "Alas!  now  that  our 
Pope  has  turned  heretic,  or  become  insane,  we  cannot 
infallibly  disprove  thee;  but  wait  until  there  rises  a 
faithful  Pope  or  a  sane  one  and  then  thou  shalt  be 
punished   with   the  most   terrible   excommunications; 

"Read  the  authors  already  mentioned  on  the  subject  of  the 
Pope. 


l66  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

then  we  shall  have  the  sanction  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  with  this  thou  shalt  be  attacked  and  vanquished 
by  the  supreme  Pontiff?"  If  during  any  of  these 
periods  great  conflicts  and  important  cases  should 
come  up,  matters  entirely  assumed  by  the  pontificate,15 
will  the  litigants  dare  trust  their  business  to  a  raving 
maniac?  Because  according  to  Romanism  the  lower 
dignitaries  are  forbidden,  under  severe  punishments, 
to  decide  grave  questions.  Would  the  party  losing 
the  case  submit  and  consider  the  judgment  as  binding, 
if  he  has  the  knowledge  that  his  case  was  decided  by 
an  irrational  person  ?  Ah !  that  would  be  the  greatest 
of  absurdities,  that  would  be  to  ignore  the  human 
heart,  that  would  be  to  entirely  forget  the  history  of 
mankind !  And  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  just  as 
the  Pope  is  liable  to  each  and  all  of  those  accidents, 
he  may  remain  afflicted  by  them  for  years  and  years ! 
How  many  times  have  we  not  seen  paralytics  in  that 
lamentable  condition,  who  lived  for  ten  or  fifteen  years 
and  even  longer!  How  many  times  have  we  not  seen 
madmen  passing  the  greatest  part  of  their  lives  in 
that  horrible  condition?  How  often  has  not  an  old 
man  lived  many  years  after  having  entered  his  dotage  ? 
What,  then,  shall  the  Church  do  during  all  that  time? 
Shall  it  live  in  continual  anarchy?  Shall  it  learn  to  do 
without  infallibility?  And  what  about  the  grave  cases 
that  may  come  up,  the  heresies  that  may  arise,  and 
other  matters  requiring  immediate  attention?  Who 
will  take  a  leading  place  in  the  Church  to  decide  them  ? 

15  Leo  XIII :  Encyclical  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church.  Car- 
dinal Vives:  Compendium  on  Canon  Law;  head,  Rights  of 
the  Pope.     Bouix :    Canon  Law,  volume,  Pope. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  167 

Who  will  venture  to  decide  matters  demanding  an 
urgent  solution?  Alas,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  Cardinal 
Gibbons !  Infallibility  may  appear  at  first  sight  an 
excellent  recourse;  but  looked  into  profoundly  and 
minutely,  it  is  a  frightful  and  terrible  calamity  that 
may  destroy  everything.  Do  not  believe  that  these 
words  come  from  a  sectarian !  They  come  from  a 
deeply  afflicted  soul,  that  sees  the  Church  rolling  down 
to  the  abyss ;  they  come  from  a  mind  profoundly  con- 
vinced that  those  who  defined  infallibility  as  a  gift 
from  heaven,  digged  the  grave  in  which  to  bury  the 
Roman  Church,  and  woe  to  us  if  we  do  not  hasten  to 
fill  the  hole !  If  we  do  not  soon,  and  that  with  all 
energy  of  our  spirit,  it  will  be  too  late  when  one  of 
those  accidents  occurs. 

We  are  now  going  to  present  a  fact  that  will  demon- 
strate to  Your  Eminence  how  the  complete  power 
granted  to  the  Pontiffs  by  infallibility,  is  not  only 
censured  by  the  lukewarm  Catholics  and  denied  by 
the  heretics,  but  that  it  causes  also  the  constant  worry 
of  the  wisest  and  purest  men  of  piety.  Does  Your 
Eminence  doubt  that  one  of  the  Catholic  bodies,  most 
worthy  of  consideration  for  its  wisdom  and  piety,  is 
the  German  Center?16  Which  of  the  world's  political 
Catholic  bodies  has  accomplished  more  victories  in  be- 
half of  the  Church  than  the  German  Center?  Which 
other  body  has  worked  more  wisely  in  defense  of  the 
Catholic  faith  ?  17  Anyone  knowing  something  about 
Theology,  Exegesis,  History,  Canonical  Law,  Apolo- 

16  Read  the  work  translated  from  German  into  Spanish; 
namely:    German  Center  and  German  Catholics. 

17  You  can  find  this  by  consulting  any  modern  Catholic  Bib- 
liography. 


1 68  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

getics,  Sociology,  etc.,  is  aware  that  nearly  all  that  is 
best,  originate  from  Germany,  and  from  members  be- 
longing individually  to  the  German  Center.  Aye,  with- 
in that  Center,  the  flower  and  the  cream  of  Catholic 
wisdom,  there  was  formed  a  secret  society  composed 
of  the  best  and  most  praiseworthy  of  that  excellent 
group.  And  is  Your  Eminence  aware  of  the  principal 
aim  of  that  secret  society,  and  the  weightiest  oath  the 
members  of  it  took?  Well,  let  Your  Eminence  won- 
der, for  their  principal  aim,  their  weightiest  oath  was 
an  undertaking  to  restrict  and  to  disable  the  power 
granted  to  the  Pontiff  by  the  definition  of  infallibility. 
We  are  dealing  with  a  most  grave  matter,  necessary 
to  be  corroborated  by  undoubted  and  trustworthy  testi- 
mony. The  journal  that  conveyed  to  astonished 
Europe  the  news  that  such  a  society  existed  was  El 
Osservatore  Romano,19  written  in  the  Vatican  under 
the  direction  and  inspection  of  the  Pope.  That  journal 
asserted  that  personages  of  the  highest  lineage,  both 
civil  and  ecclesiastical,  praiseworthy  for  their  wisdom 
and  virtue,  were  the  parties  compromised,  and  it  went 
on  to  say  that  Pope  Pius  X  was  so  grieved  in  making 
sure  of  the  existence  of  that  society,  and  becoming 
acquainted  with  some  of  its  members,  that  he  sickened 
and  took  to  his  bed!  That  editorial  was  reproduced 
in  Spain  by  such  inspired  reviews  as  Razon  y  Fe  of 
the  Jesuits,  and  La  Ciudad  de  Dios  of  the  Augus- 
tines. 

This  occurred  about  the  middle  of  the  year  1907. 

18  Read  the  reviews,  Razon  y  Fe  and  La  Ciudad  de  Dios.  In 
the  numbers  previously  indicated  you  will  find  the  citation  of 
the  Roman  observatories. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  169 

Let  Your  Eminence  add  to  this  the  example  of  Car- 
dinal Newman,19  who  circumscribed  infallibility  to  the 
extent  of  denying  it  to  documents  like  the  Syllabus. 
Add  also  the  example  given  by  yourselves  with  your 
''Americanism,"  20  a  chapter  of  which  sought  to  re- 
strict the  practice  of  infallibility  as  much  as  possible, 
showing  profound  tact  and  foresight.  Take  into  ac- 
count the  recent  petition  from  a  large  portion  of  the 
Italian,  English  and  French  clergy  against  the  last 
condemnation  of  Modernism  by  Pius  X.  Connect  all 
these  facts  and  manifestations  and  you  will  see  how 
infallibility,  instead  of  bringing  about  the  much  de- 
sired peace  and  unity,  is  a  veritable  cause  of  anxiety 
and  horror. 

If  it  were  our  purpose  to  write  a  work  of  scandal 
we  could  adduce  many  more  declarations  on  the  sub- 
ject from  the  highest  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  and 
many  other  references  from  most  important  person- 
ages. Your  Eminence  would  then  see  how  in  the 
soundest  Catholic  conscience  there  exists  a  genuine 
yearning  to  correct  by  any  possible  means  this  Vati- 
canist  error.  Alas,  if  you  would  but  approach  nearer 
to  the  center!  If  you  would  but  hoist  the  flag  of  res- 
toration !  What  an  immense  good  you  would  do  to 
Christianity!  The  black  clouds  already  closing  over 
our  heads  would  at  once  disperse,  and  you  would  pave 
the  way  to  facilitate  the  fraternal  union  of  all  Chris- 
tian societies  and  congregations ! 

Not  only  are  there  difficulties  relating  to  personal 
infallibility  with  the  infirmities  inherent  to  all  human 

19  Read  Jaugey:    Head,  Syllabus. 

20  Leo  XIII :    Encyclical  on  Americanism. 


170  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

beings,  but  there  are  also  worse  evils,  when  we  con- 
sider the  papal  election  in  the  same  connection.  Let 
us  suppose  that  the  friction  between  the  Vatican  and 
the  Italian  government  should  become  more  acute, 
that  the  socialist  party  which  is  rapidly  gaining 
ground,  should  rise  into  power,  that  it  should  take 
possession  of  the  Vatican,  and  close  the  doors  on  the 
death  of  any  Pope.  Which  cardinals  would  elect  the 
next  Pope?  The  Spanish  in  their  country?  The 
French  in  theirs  ?  Would  the  others  accept  an  election 
made  by  their  fellow-collegians  at  any  other  place 
outside  of  Rome  and  Italy?  If  this  did  occur  there  is 
no  doubt  that  Christianity  would  go  back  to  the  sad 
days  of  scandalous  schisms  of  the  Occident.  And 
who,  knowing  the  onward  march  of  societies  and 
peoples,  would  venture  to  deny  that  this  may  occur? 
Let  us  take  yet  another  hypothesis :  that  the  cardinals, 
tired  of  carrying  on  their  shoulders  the  enormous 
weight  of  the  Papacy,  decided  not  to  elect  a  Pope, 
either  because  they  could  not  agree  or  because  the 
majority  were  of  the  opinion  that  no  Pope  should  be 
elected,  how  would  the  Church  stand  in  such  a  case? 
According  to  the  bull  of  Pius  IX  we  should  have  no 
Church  competent  to  decide  the  most  insignificant 
question,  except  as  to  his  successor,  and  on  the  hy- 
pothesis we  are  discussing  we  should  have  no  Pope. 
What  remedy  should  we  have  under  those  circum- 
stances, except  to  submit  to  the  insult  and  mockery 
of  outsiders  and  bow  with  shame,  to  lower  our  heads 
and  say :  "We  made  a  mistake ;  we  thought  that  by 
infallibility  we  could  save  the  Church,  instead  of  which 
infallibility  kills  it ;  we  thought  that  with  that  privilege 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  I7I 

we  protected  it  against  the  inconstancies  of  time,  the 
onslaughts  of  the  wicked,  but,  alas !  our  dream  has 
vanished  like  smoke  before  the  wind,  and  its  disap- 
pearance leaves  us  in  a  situation  a  thousand  times 
worse  than  before,  in  a  danger  incomparably  sadder"  ? 
Let  Your  Eminence  examine  the  numerous  contingen- 
cies that  may  arise,  compare  the  examples  presented 
and  connect  the  whole  without  regard  to  persons,  ex- 
cepting Christ  and  the  truth,  and  Your  Eminence  will 
see  how  much  more  dangerous  our  situation  has  be- 
come since  the  passage  of  infallibility,  than  the  liberal 
and  democratic  situation  of  the  Baptists,  who  in  the 
midst  of  divisions  and  subdivisions  will  always  have 
the  Gospel  to  guide  them,  and  to  be  their  standard 
and  beacon,  as  a  center  and  basis  of  future  unions. 
For  them  it  will  always  be  of  little  moment,  if  part  of 
them  should  go  astray  and  be  lost;  Christ's  great 
federation  will  always  subsist;  but  with  us  once  the 
supreme  head  is  removed  through  any  of  the  con- 
tingencies mentioned,  we  have  lost  everything  forever. 
Therefore,  instead  of  our  Caesarism  and  centralism 
being  a  thing  of  envy,  it  is  our  greatest  evil  and  our 
greatest  danger.  Against  the  abuses  of  liberty,  is 
liberty  itself;  against  the  abuses  of  a  despot,  there  is 
no  other  remedy  but  revolution — a  lasting  revolution 
until  those  abuses  are  demolished  and  the  Church  re- 
stored to  its  primitive  liberty,  true  life  and  independ- 
ence. And  though  such  a  revolution  were  not  called 
for,  by  the  dangers  that  infallibility  itself  contains,  we 
should  be  forced  into  it  by  the  captious  assaults  of 
Romanism. 

Let  not  Your  Eminence  think  that  infallibility  is  the 


172  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

end.21  It  is  already  rumored  that  in  extreme  cases 
the  Pope  may  elect  his  successor.22  Other  cardinals 
go  further  and  say  that  he  may  do  so  in  ordinary 
cases.  We  are  also  assured  by  some  eminent  theolo- 
gians 23  that  not  only  "ex-cathedra"  but  whenever  he 
opens  his  mouth  he  is  infallible.  Pray  refer,  Cardinal 
Gibbons,  to  the  footnotes  and  you  will  see  by  the 
references  that  this  matter  is  a  serious  one.  If  the 
flag  of  protest  is  not  raised  soon,  and  energetically, 
when  we  least  expect  we  shall  awake  under  an  heredi- 
tary Pope,  impeccable  and  divine,  possessing  all  the 
attributes  and  perfections  of  a  deity. 

May  God  inspire  His  Church  and  save  her  from 
the  most  ignominious  of  deaths — despotism ! 

21  Read  Suarez :  On  the  Pope.  He  and  S.  Alfonso  both  claim 
that  in  extreme  cases  the  popes  can  elect  their  successor  and 
such  election  would  have  to  be  recognized. 

22  Read  Cardinal  Vives,  who  is  considered  as  the  Roman 
contemporary  oracle,  who  states  that  if  the  Pope  can  elect  his 
successor  in  extreme  cases,  then  he  can  do  likewise  in  ordi- 
nary cases. 

28  Read  P.  Fernandez :  Del  Escorial.  This  author  maintained 
already  that  the  Pope  is  infallible  always,  in  every  one  of  his 
words,  and  that  he  cannot  even  be  in  error  in  a  single  con- 
versation. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CAN   THE  TEMPORAL   POWER  OF   THE   POPES   BE   UPHELD 
IN   THE   MIDST  OF  THE  TWENTIETH   CENTURY? 

IN  order  to  give  an  adequate  answer  to  the  question 
that  heads  this  chapter,  it  is  necessary  to  explain 
some  theories  concerning  the  origin  of  public  govern- 
ment. In  this  way  only,  shall  we  keep  on  the  straight 
path  and  arrive  at  conclusions  of  undoubted  legal  cer- 
tainty. It  would  matter  little  to  allege  the  antiquity 
of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Papacy,  the  legality  of 
its  acquisition,  the  honesty  of  its  administration,  if  all 
these  reasons  had  no  meaning  in  the  new  theories  on 
law,  and  if  the  Papacy  should  so  understand  it,  when 
deciding  international  questions  analogous  to  its  own, 
by  taking  into  account  only  those  new  theories  on  law. 
We  shall  not  therefore,  in  our  exposition  of  this 
weighty  question,  follow  the  road  taken  by  Cardinal 
Gibbons,  because  we  consider  antiquated  and  useless 
any  demonstration  of  the  legality  of  that  power;  but 
we  shall  bear  in  mind  his  reasons  for  deciding  whether 
that  power  should  be  restored  or  not.  Here  is  a  sketch 
of  the  synthesis  of  our  reply:  Modern  public  law 
denies  temporal  power  to  the  Papacy;  if  the  Papacy 
tried  to  claim  it,  the  Papacy  would  be  guilty  of  abuse 
and  tyranny;  this  doctrine  can  be  corroborated  by 
doctrinal  resolutions  of  the  Holy  See.  On  the  other 
hand  history  demonstrates  in  a  clear  manner  that  the 

(173) 


174  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

exercise  of  that  power  causes  the  most  serious  evils 
to  the  Church,  which  it  should  oppose  even  in  the  im- 
probable case  that  the  people  wished  to  be  ruled  again 
by  the  Pontiffs.  We  shall  conclude  by  answering  the 
reasons  alleged  by  Romanists. 

In  ancient  and  modern  times  two  theories  have 
been,  and  still  are,  the  fundamental  basis  of  public 
government:  the  divine  right  of  kings  or  chiefs  of 
states,  and,  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.1 

In  the  times  of  the  great  European  monarchies,  the 
first  theory  prevailed  to  such  a  degree  that  to  oppose 
it  was  considered  high  treason. 

Two  schools  sprang  up  advocating  the  first  theory ; 
one  entirely  Caesarist  in  character  and  almost  des- 
potic, which  maintained  that  the  power  of  the  kings 
was  transmitted  to  them  directly  and  immediately 
from  God,  without  any  intervention  whatsoever  of 
the  people,  nor  authority  on  the  part  of  the  people  to 
add  to  the  power  of  the  kings  or  to  take  anything 
from  it.2 

According  to  the  authors  of  this  theory,  the  king's 
power  was  equal  to  the  present  power  of  the  Popes, 
the  only  difference  being  that  the  former  had  to  gov- 
ern a  nation  temporally,  while  the  latter  governed  the 
Church  spiritually. 

Both  authorities,  however,  were  equally  sovereign 
and  of  immediate  divine  origin.  Neither  sovereign 
could  be  removed  by  the  people,  and  both  were  abso- 

xRead  the  famous  Italian  Jesuit  Taparelli,  his  fundamental 
books :    Representative  Governments  and  Natural  Law. 

2  Read  the  immortal  Spanish  philosopher  Balmes,  his  monu- 
mental book:  Protestantism  compared  with  Catholicism, 
chapters  on  the  Origin  of  the  Temporal  Power. 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     I75 

lute  and  independent  in  their  governments.  Accord- 
ing to  the  authors  of  that  theory  the  people  had  no 
standing  and  could  not  take  any  part  in  settling  gov- 
ernmental questions.  The  persons  and  the  property 
of  the  nation  were  in  the  nature  of  a  gift  from  God 
to  the  kings,  as  a  complement  of  the  power  granted 
to  them  to  be  used  as  they  considered  just  and  com- 
formable  with  the  common  good.3  Another  theory 
supposed  that  the  power  was  divine  but  indirect, 
through  the  election  and  intervention  of  the  people. 
According  to  this  school,  God  conferred  His  divine 
power  upon  whomsoever  the  people  elected.  The 
designation  was  not  an  immediate  one  from  God,  but 
was  through  the  choice  of  the  people.4  So  far  as 
concerns  the  scope  of  the  power  granted  by  God  to 
the  kings,  and  the  keeping  of  the  people  in  bondage 
by  the  king  or  chief  of  states,  the  two  theories  became 
identical.  For  both,  the  king  commanded  in  the  name 
of  God,  and  not  as  a  delegate  of  the  people ;  for  both, 
the  king  was  master  of  the  lives  and  properties  of  the 
people  without  having  to  render  account  of  his  acts 
to  anyone,  except  to  God,  whose  delegate  he  was. 
For  either,  it  was  sacrilegious  to  rise  against  the 
kings,  although  the  latter  might  be  monsters  of  wick- 
edness and  tyrants  of  the  people.  Any  further  knowl- 
edge required  on  these  theories  and  schools  can  be 
had  by  reading  the  authors  and  books  mentioned  in 
the  footnotes. 

3  Read  Mendive :  Natural  Law.  Zigliara  and  Gonzalez: 
Ethics  and  Natural  Law.  Jaugey:  His  work  already  men- 
tioned, head,  Origin  of  Power. 

4  Read  Balmes :  Book  and  head  mentioned  before.  Jaugey: 
head,  Autoridad,  Rey,  Origen  del  Poder. 

13 


I76  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  a  Jesuit,  the  illustrious 
and  learned  Father  Mariana,  was  the  first  within  the 
Catholic  school  to  raise  the  standard  of  national 
sovereignty.5  His  short  work  produced  a  general 
commotion.  It  was  condemned  by  the  University  and 
by  the  Parliament  of  Paris.  It  was  burnt  in  public 
by  the  executioner,  and  the  author  would  have  met 
the  same  fate,  had  they  come  upon  him.  The  Jesuits, 
who  were  always  the  staunchest  defenders  of  the 
theory  of  divine  rights,6  on  seeing  that  their  irrational 
theory  had  been  substituted  for  the  more  harmoni- 
ous and  philosophical  one  of  national  sovereignty,  and 
beholding  the  Catholics  scorn  their  old  theory  as  anti- 
humanitarian,  and  anti-social,  and  themselves  take 
refuge  under  the  contemporary  theory  of  national 
sovereignty,  endeavored  to  exhume  Father  Mariana 
from  the  oblivion  to  which  he  had  by  them  been 
relegated,  in  order  to  come  out  as  the  first  supporters 
of  so  popular  and  triumphant  a  doctrine.7  If  within 
that  powerful  order  of  Jesuits  there  existed  that  his- 
torical code  of  honor  and  shame,  proper  to  every 
honest  organization,  it  should  remain  silent  and  en- 
dure its  defeat  with  resignation  and  in  secret.  As 
the  Augustines  say,  speaking  of  Luther,  He  came 
from  amongst  us,  but  he  was  not  one  of  us,  so  it 
may  be  said  of  Father  Mariana  concerning  the  Jes- 

5  Read  the  famous  work  of  Mariana :  De  Rege  et  Regis 
Institutione. 

6  For  over  a  century  they  were  the  confessors  of  nearly  all 
of  the  royal  families  of  Europe.  You  can  also  read  Suarez, 
Bellarmine,  and  Sanchez,  on  this  doctrine. 

7  The  Jesuit  P.  Garzon :  Title,  La  Democracia  and  Father 
Mariana. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  If] 

uits,  He  came  from  amongst  you,  but  he  was  not 
one  of  you.  How  could  he  be  one  of  you,  since  you, 
unable  to  stifle  his  spirit,  or  weaken  his  iron  will, 
imprisoned  him  like  a  criminal  to  end  his  life?8 
How  could  he  be  one  of  you,  since  he  was  the  first 
to  denounce  you  before  the  world  as  hypocrites  and 
deceivers?  How  could  he  be  one  of  you,  since  he 
was  the  first  to  declare  that  yours  was  the  most  de- 
testable religious  order,  that  your  morals  were  those 
of  the  brothel,  that  your  government  was  worthy 
of  Nero;  that  from  your  commercial  aspiration,  you 
were  not  a  holy  order,  but  a  company  of  mun- 
dane traders;  that  for  your  fraudulent  bankruptcies, 
many  of  you  deserved  to  be  in  irons  and  in  prison, 
etc.  ? 9  And  mind,  he  knew  well !  Having  been  re- 
ceived personally  by  your  own  father  and  founder, 
he  well  knew  what  your  illustrious  head  taught  and 
what  your  actions  were;  he  knew,  as  no  one,  better, 
what  the  famous  order  of  Jesuits  should  be,  and  what 
you  already  were,  when  you  took  charge  of  your 
famous  Father  C.  Acuaviva.10  No,  a  thousand  times 
no!  That  illustrious  head  was  not  one  of  you;  he 
was  of  us,  he  was  a  member  of  that  phalanx  which 

8  Read  the  Jesuits'  History  on  that  epoch. 

9  P.  Mariana:  Title,  Defectos  y  Enfermedades  de  la  Com- 
pania  de  Jesus  (The  Defects  and  Diseases  of  the  Order  of 
Jesuits)  at  that  epoch.  You  can  also  read  the  information  of 
the  Jesuit  F.  Ribadeneira,  which  is  kept  in  the  archives  of  the 
Spanish  Academy  of  Languages. 

10  More  recent  information  regarding  the  Order  of  Jesuits 
can  be  obtained  by  reading  the  eminent  Jesuit  M.  Mir:  title, 
Los  Jesuitas  por  dentro  y  un  Barrido  hacia  fuera  (The  Jesuits 
inside  and  a  sweeping  outside).  It  will  be  very  appropriate  to 
read  also  the  famous  editor  and  Catholic  priest  Pey  Ordeix : 
title,  Crisis  de  la  Compania  de  Jesus  (Crisis  of  the  Order  of 
Jesuits). 


iyH  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

is  always  ready  to  fight  against  all  inhuman  despot- 
ism; to  unmask  every  trafficking  hypocrisy;  to  banish 
every  degrading  doctrine,  though  it  may  bear  the 
stamp  of  the  fisherman  or  the  signet  of  a  crown. 
Father  Mariana  was  then  the  first  to  establish  within 
Catholicism  the  national  sovereignty  in  the  face  of 
the  despotism  of  the  so-called  divine  right  of  kings. 
But  in  order  to  avoid  confusion,  we  must  explain 
the  idea  of  national  sovereignty  according  to  the 
Catholic  thesis.  The  authors  on  modern  law  under- 
stand by  sovereignty  that  the  people  must  not  only 
elect  their  own  governing  heads,  but  that  the  people 
are  themselves  the  source  of  all  law,  and  the  ones  to 
determine  by  their  enactments  or  statutes,  what  is 
licit  and  what  is  illicit,  what  is  just  and  what  is  un- 
just. Non-Catholic  authors  understand  that  human 
reason  and  human  liberty  are  self-sufficient,  and  are 
in  no  need  of  any  connection  with  another  superior 
reason,  or  of  any  regard  for  another  law  transcendent 
to  human  nature.11  Catholics  cannot  proclaim  such 
a  kind  of  sovereignty  without  contradicting  them- 
selves.12 They  believe  in  a  King  of  kings,  in  a  sover- 
eign of  whom  all  other  sovereigns  are  subjects — God. 
They  believe  that  this  King  has  impressed  in  our  con- 
sciences a  universal  law  called  the  eternal  law  of  God. 
They  believe  that  neither  kings  nor  people  can  attempt 
anything  against  the  sovereignty  of  God,  nor  against 
His  eternal  law;  that  this  is  the  standard  to  which 
all  laws  must  conform ;  that  no  law  that  is  not  founded 

11  Read  Azcarate  :    Lecciones  de  Derecho  Publico.      Kant : 
Practical  Reason.    Ahrens,  and  Olozaga :   on  Public  Rights. 

12  Cardinal  Zigliara  and  Cardinal  Gonzalez  :    Ethics. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 79 

directly  or  indirectly  on  the  eternal  law  of  God  can 
have  any  compulsory  force,  and  that  it  ceases  to  be 
law  if  it  contradicts  the  eternal  law  of  God.  It  is 
evident  that  national  sovereignty  as  understood  by 
Catholics,  and  as  understood  by  non-Catholics,  pre- 
sents fundamental  differences  concerning  its  origin, 
its  scope,  and  its  finality.  But  for  our  purpose  it  is 
necessary  only  to  elucidate  the  point  bearing  upon  the 
election  of  a  form  of  government.  On  this  question 
both  theories  agree:  the  two  proclaim  that  a  nation 
can  choose  the  form  of  government  it  deems  best ; 13 
both  affirm  that  the  nation  is  above  the  government, 
and  that  it  is  free  to  alter  its  form  and  even  to  change 
it.  Consistently  with  these  principles,  they  consider 
that  a  government  is  the  more  legitimate  the  more 
distant  it  is  from  the  people,  or  the  more  it  wants  to 
govern  the  people  against  the  national  will.  This 
doctrine,  already  generally  taught  in  universities  and 
Catholic  schools,  is  the  one  that  has  inspired  the  latest 
international  relations  between  the  public  government 
of  Europe  and  the  Pontificate.14  Practically  the  latter 
has  already  given  up  all  historic  questions  on  legiti- 
macy. It  has  declared  the  present  governments  of 
France  and  of  Spain  good,  according  to  the  state- 
ment of  those  nations  by  their  collective  will.  The 
Pontificate  has  done  something  more,  thereby  calling 
for  praise:  it  has  succeeded  in  killing  the  legitimist 

13  Read  Taparelli :  His  work  above  mentioned.  Jaugey : 
Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe. 

14  Read  several  encyclicals  of  Leo  XIII  to  the  French  and 
Spanish  on  this  subject.  Read  Leo  XIII  on  his  numerous  pil- 
grimages preceded  by  Cardinal  Sanz  Fores,  and  Cardinal 
Sancha,  then  Archbishop  of  Valencia.  Read  the  later  pam- 
phlet approved  by  Rome. 


l8o  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

pretensions  of  both  nations,  by  teaching  them  the 
theory  of  national  sovereignty,  and  by  practicing  it, 
going  even  so  far  as  to  consider  as  rebellions  those 
opposing  it.15  Pius  IX  himself  went  the  length  of 
proclaiming  this  doctrine,  convoking  parliaments  to 
govern  the  Patrimony  of  St.  Peter.  Therefore,  it 
may  be  affirmed  as  incontrovertible  that  at  the  present 
time  all  questions  of  public  domain  must  be  decided 
by  the  sovereign  people,  and  that  this  doctrine  has  not 
only  the  support  of  the  Catholic  schools,  but  also  the 
sanction  of  the  sovereign  Pontiffs,  who  by  their  teach- 
ing and  example  inculcate  it  in  the  Catholic  nations. 
Having  thus  established  the  question,  and  it  must 
not  be  established  otherwise,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  what 
should  be  asked  is  not  whether  that  domain  of  the 
Pontiff  is  really  very  ancient,  whether  it  was  initiated 
by  Constantine  and  consummated  by  Pepin  and  Char- 
lemagne;  whether  the  Popes  were  or  were  not  de- 
fenders of  the  Roman  region ;  and  whether  they  called 
in  or  sent  away  the  barbarians ;  all  those  reasons  and 
many  other  similar  ones  should  be  set  aside,  by  such 
a  good  ecclesiastic  philosopher,  by  merely  answering, 
Extra  questionem  vagaris  (You  are  wandering  from 
the  questions).  What  should  be  asked  is  this:  Do 
the  Italian  people  wish  now  to  be  governed  by  the 
Pope,  or  not?  If  so,  then  the  House  of  Piedmont 
would  be  a  tyrant ;  if  not,  the  Pontificate  would  be  a 
despot  for  claiming  the  power.16  Here  Cardinal  Gib- 
bons,   with   ingeniousness   that    from   the   lips    of   an 

15  Read    Balmes :      Pamphlet    on    the    measures    taken    by- 
Pins  IX. 

16  Cardinal    Gibbons :     Faith    of    Our    Fathers,    head,    Tem- 
poral Power  of  the  Popes. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  l8l 

American  savant  is  astounding,  exclaims:  "A  plebis- 
cite that  took  place  under  the  bayonets  of  Piedmont 
cannot  be  good."  17  Are  we  to  understand  that  if  it 
had  taken  place  under  the  bayonets  and  anathemas  of 
the  Vatican  it  would  have  been  more  spontaneous 
and  free?  Come,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  let  us  be  impar- 
tial and  follow  the  example  of  Christ:  what  is,  is,18 
and  what  is  not,  is  not,  fall  who  may.  Would  Your 
Eminence  have  a  convincing  example  of  the  Italian 
people's  affection  for  government  by  the  Church? 
Please  read  the  result  of  one  of  the  last  elections. 
From  the  Pope  down  to  the  youngest  acolyte,  they  all 
worked  like  heroes.  Cardinals,  archbishops,  bishops, 
curates  and  friars  went  from  place  to  place,  wrote 
and  worked,  promised  and  threatened,  and  what  was 
the  result  ? — that  of  the  Latin  fable  "mons  partariens" 
and  the  "ridiculus  mus."  10  They  obtained  nothing, 
Your  Eminence.  Anyone  who  has  walked  from  one 
end  of  Italy  to  the  other,  anyone  who  has  taken  the 
opinion  not  only  of  the  public  but  of  many  clergymen, 
bishops  and  even  cardinals,  comes  to  the  profound 
conviction  that  they  would  rather  have  the  Sultan  of 
Morocco  rule  them  than  the  Pope.  For  the  purpose 
of  strengthening  his  thesis,  Cardinal  Gibbons  has  re- 
course to  an  unusual  theory.  He  says : 20  Since  the 
papal  patrimony  comes  from  all  the  Catholic  peoples, 
the  vote  should  be  asked  of  all  those  peoples.  Ad- 
mirable,  Cardinal ;   only,   if   your   argument   has   any 

17  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Same  book,  same  head. 
"Matt.  v.  37.    James  v.  12. 

19  Read  any  of  the  Italian  Catholic  newspapers  regarding  the 
last  Italian  elections. 

20  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons  as  above. 


l82  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

force,  it  is  not  aimed  against  Piedmont,  but  against 
the  Vatican. 

Let  us  assume  the  reason  alleged  to  be  a  good  one, 
that  in  effect  every  Catholic  has  a  voice  and  a  vote  in 
what  concerns  and  belongs  to  the  patrimony  of  St. 
Peter,  that  said  patrimony  is  not  tangible  without  the 
universal  approval  of  Catholics.  Alas !  Cardinal  Gib- 
bons !  Does  Your  Eminence  forget  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory? Is  Your  Eminence  unaware  that  the  Pontifi- 
cate always  played  ducks  and  drakes  with  St.  Peter's 
patrimony,  now  selling,  now  exchanging,  sometimes 
giving  away  portions  of  it,  without  ever  consider- 
ing that  particular  right  of  the  Catholic  Church  ? 21 
Therefore,  if  such  a  right  did  exist,  those  to  trample 
upon  and  annul  it  were  the  Pontiffs,  who,  during  a 
period  extending  over  many  hundreds  of  years,  never 
allowed  the  universal  Church  to  interfere.  That  argu- 
ment, therefore,  instead  of  injuring  the  House  of 
Piedmont,  hurts  only  the  Pontificate,  for  it  covers  it 
with  the  most  odious  of  ridicules,  with  the  ridicule  of 
despotism.  It  remains  then  demonstrated  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  contemporary  doctrine  taught  by  Cath- 
olic doctors  and  practiced  by  the  Pontiff  in  encyclical 
addresses  to  Frenchmen  and  Spaniards,  the  people 
have  the  right  to  elect  any  sovereign  they  please ;  and 
for  that  reason,  the  present  sovereign  being  an  Italian 
elected  by  the  people,  the  duty  of  the  Pontiff  is  to 
keep  silent  and  confine  himself  within  the  Vatican 
until  called  out  by  the  people.  If  he  did  or  attempted 
to  do  anything  else,  he  should  be  condemned  by  his 

21  Read    Baronio,    Hergenrother,    Rohrbacher,    Natal    Alex- 
ander, about  the  Popes,  centuries  XIV,  XV,  XVI. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  183 

own  doctrine  and  example  as  a  despot  and  a  tyrant.22 
And  we  are  already  entering  on  the  second  point. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  Roman  people  should  again 
call  on  the  Pope  to  govern  them.  Would  it  be  ex- 
pedient for  the  Church  to  allow  the  Pontiff  again  to 
be  temporal  king?  Here  indeed  would  we  invoke 
the  universal  vote  of  the  Church  and  ask  for  its  in- 
terdict. Here  indeed  would  we  call  to  mind  the  sad 
teaching  of  history,  for  all  to  shout  in  one  mighty 
blare:  We  do  not  wish  any  Pope  to  be  king,  for  he 
would  cease  to  be  Sacred  Pontiff  and  become  a  mun- 
dane prince.  The  scholastics  say  that  "contra  facta 
non  valent  argumenta"  (against  facts  there  is  no  ar- 
gument) ;  authentic  facts  of  history  show  that  tem- 
poral power  has  always  been  fatal  to  the  Church, 
theoretical  arguments  count  for  nothing.  We  shall 
see  later  that  they  are  futile  and  unsubstantial.  The 
effects  of  temporal  power  have  resulted  in :  Loose- 
ness of  habits  in  23  the  Vatican ;  scandalous  schisms 
that  have  perverted  Europe ;  bloody  wars  between 
princes  and  princes,  between  these  and  the  Papacy ; 
scandalous  sales  of  ecclesiastical  property,  or  the  ces- 
sion of  it  to  spurious  sons  or  to  nephews  of  ques- 
tionable legitimacy;  degrading  nepotism,  an  affront 
of  the  Papacy  to  all  of  cultured  Europe ;  the  perpetua- 
tion of  schism  in  the  Orient  and  of  separation  from 
the  Reformationists ;  and  finally,  the  sight  of  some 
Popes  riding  24  at  the  head  of  their  soldiers,  ordering 

22  Read  the  Encyclical  already  mentioned  of  Leo  XIII. 

23  Read  the   Catholic  historians,   such   as  Rivas,  Alzog  and 
Cesar  Cantu,  on  the  subject. 

24  Read    any    of    the    many    authors    on    the    Pontificate    of 
Julius  II. 


184  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

bayonet  charges,  and  scaling  walls  like  any  private. 
All  the  things  that  have  scandalized  the  Roman  Church 
since  the  cession  of  Pepin,  have  been  caused  entirely 
by  the  temporal  power,  or  it  has  been  their  strongest 
contributing  cause. 

I  would  respectfully  challenge  His  Eminence  to 
mention  a  single  epoch,  a  single  century  in  which  that 
cursed  power  has  not  done  more  harm  than  good. 
And  if  this  is  true — and  to  deny  it,  amounts  to  deny- 
ing history — why  attempt  the  restoration  of  an  order 
of  things  that  is  so  calamitous  to  the  Church?  Only 
for  two  causes  would  I,  as  a  clergyman,  take  up 
arms :  to  defend  my  country  in  case  of  invasion  by 
the  foreigner — for  I  believe  the  man  is  a  degenerate 
who  does  not  love  his  country;  and  to  defend  my 
Church,  for  I  believe  that  not  to  do  so  would  be 
equivalent  to  not  loving  the  Church.  And  before 
replying  to  the  reasons,  I  venture  to  make  one  or  two 
remarks  concerning  two  hints,  thrown  out  by  Car- 
dinal Gibbons. 

In  speaking  of  Constantine,  he  appears  to  suggest 
that  the  latter  went  away  from  Rome  in  order  to  leave 
to  the  Pope  greater  freedom  in  his  jurisdiction.25 
This  is  contrary  to  history,26  which  mentions  two 
causes  for  that  step :  the  first,  to  be  nearer  to  the  bar- 
barians in  order  to  prevent  their  continuous  incur- 
sions, the  second,  to  get  away  from  Rome,  whose 
revolts,  especially  those  of  the  Pretorian  soldiers, 
filled  him  with  terror.     In  this  he  followed  the  ex- 

25  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Faith  of  Our  Fathers. 

26  Edw.  Gibbon :  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  _  Empire, 
epoch  during  the  empire  of  Diocletian  and  Constantine. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  185 

ample  of  his  predecessor,  the  diplomat  Diocletian.  To 
add  the  reason  that  it  was  to  leave  to  the  Pope 
greater  freedom  may  be  very  flattering  to  Romanism, 
but  history  denies  it.  Rome  was  under  a  civil  gov- 
ernment during  Constantine's  empire  and  under  those 
of  his  immediate  successors.  The  Pope  enjoyed  re- 
ligious liberty,  as  did  the  pagan  Pontiff;  but  that  he 
exercised  any  civil  dominion  over  the  city,  we  have 
not  seen  in  any  author  worthy  of  credit,  and  we  do 
not  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  such  testimony. 
We  hope  Cardinal  Gibbons  will  kindly  refer  us  to 
one. 

His  second  hint  would  have  caused  us  immoderate 
hilarity,  if  we  were  not  dealing  with  such  a  serious 
subject.  Says  Cardinal  Gibbons : 27  The  Pope  is  sin- 
gle, he  has  no  sons,  his  office  is  not  hereditary,  and  he 
has  no  interest  in  making  any  person  rich.  It  requires 
some  simpleness  to  utter  such  words  right  in  the 
twentieth  century  and  amidst  the  American  people. 
The  extent  of  historical  culture  which  the  Catho- 
lics of  America  may  possess,  is  not  known  to  us,  al- 
though our  sacerdotal  ministry  has  been  exercised  in 
this  country.  Sufficient  data  to  form  any  judgment 
whatever  on  this  point  have  not  been  obtained,  for  it 
is  but  a  few  months  that  we  have  resided  in  this 
region.  But  we  can  assure  you,  Cardinal  Gibbons, 
that  your  words,  spoken  with  such  honest  simplicity, 
would  cause  universal  sneering  in  Europe  and  even 
in  Rome.  Those  who  have  studied  canon  law  are 
familiar  with  a  Latin  saying  which  may  be  translated 
thus :    "God  deprived  clergymen  of  sons,  but  the  devil 

27  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons,  already  mentioned. 


1 86  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

gave  them  nephews."  No  doubt  the  ecclesiastical 
history  read  by  Your  Eminence  has  omissions  not 
made  in  mine.  In  that  way  only  can  we  understand 
the  false  statement  made  with  so  much  simplicity. 
Are  we  to  believe  that  Your  Eminence  has  not  read 
in  every  serious  ecclesiastical  work  that  nepotism,28 
more  or  less  legitimate,  is  one  of  the  stains  that  most 
sully  the  aspect  of  the  Pontiff?  Have  not  your  ears 
ever  been  struck  by  the  illustrious  names  of  the 
Farneses,  the  Colonnas,  the  Medicis,  and  others,  around 
which  there  multiply  and  dance  a  countless  number 
of  nephews  and  nieces,  who  live  and  aggrandize  at 
the  expense  of  St.  Peter's  patrimony;  who  are  trans- 
formed from  mere  laborers  or  merchants  into  counts, 
marquises,  dukes,  princes  and  even  queens,  and  all 
that,  thanks  to  their  more  or  less  legitimate  uncles, 
the  Pontiffs?  Are  we  to  believe  that  Your  Eminence 
is  not  aware  that  Paul  IV,29  not  to  mention  many 
others,  risks  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  involves  him- 
self in  a  war  with  Spain  for  the  only  purpose  of  hav- 
ing one  of  his  nieces,  the  notorious  Catherine  de 
Medici,  reach  the  throne  of  France?  Are  we  to  be- 
lieve that  Your  Eminence  thinks  that  the  Borgias  had 
neither  sons  nor  nephews,  nor  had  to  impair  the  patri- 
mony of  St.  Peter  to  enrich  them?  Are  we  to  believe 
that  Your  Eminence  is  not  aware  that  Alexander  VI 30 
the  shrewdest  of  the  Borgias,  boasted  of  having  chil- 

28  Read  on  this  subject  any  of  the  above  mentioned  authors. 

29  Read  Castelar :  Historia  de  la  Revolucion  Religiosa,  Pon- 
tificate of  Paul  IV.  This  author  maintains  that  said  niece 
was  his  own  daughter. 

30  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe,  head,  Alex- 
ander VI.    A  famous  and  brilliant  investigation  on  this  Pope, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  187 

dren,  that  he  did  not  conceal  their  relationship  behind 
the  false  one  of  nephew,  and  that  to  leave  them  as 
princes  he  thought  St.  Peter's  money  and  the  pontifi- 
cal estates  were  not  enough?  Many  still  more  strik- 
ing scandals  might  be  quoted,  but  it  is  so  repugnant 
to  lower  oneself  to  such  polemics,  especially  when  the 
foregoing  is  more  than  sufficient  to  prove  again  how 
calamitous  is  the  temporal  power,  and  how  ridiculous 
it  is  to  use  certain  arguments,  under  cover  of  ap- 
parent candor  and  simplicity.  Such  proceedings  ex- 
pose one  to  universal  mockery. 

Let  us  now  hear  the  arguments  alleged  in  favor  of 
temporal  power.  The  Pope,  says  Cardinal  Gibbons,31 
must  be  free  to  receive  his  faithful ;  he  must  be  free 
to  communicate  with  them:  this  is  incompatible  with 
the  Pope  being  the  subject  of  another  power,  there- 
fore he  must  be  king.  Let  us  examine  the  efficacy 
of  these  two  arguments.  We  are  dealing  with  a 
theoretical  question,  not  with  a  practical  one,  and  we 
must  look  to  history  for  an  answer.  If  the  argument 
were  true  for  the  future,  it  must  have  been  true  in 
the  past.  If  in  the  past  it  was  not  sufficient,  we  must 
not  invoke  it  under  equal  or  worse  conditions,  nor 
must  we  invoke  it  as  certain  for  the  future.  What 
does  history  say?  That  the  most  degrading  slavery 
for  the  Church  commenced  with  temporal  power. 
That  then  less  32  than  ever  could  the  Pontiff  live  con- 
tented in  Rome.  That  he  was  expelled  and  impris- 
oned on  innumerable  occasions,  on  questions  arising 

31  Read  Cardinal  Gibbons :  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  head, 
Temporal  Power. 

33  Read  any  of  the  historians  above  cited. 


1 88  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

out  of  his  temporal  power ; 33  that  first  the  Holy  Ro- 
man Empire,  then  the  most  Christian  princes  of 
France,  again  the  Catholic  kings  of  Spain,  kept  him 
moving  from  place  to  place,  all  on  account  of  the 
temporal  power;  and  that  his  much-dreamed-of  liber- 
ty does  not  show  anywhere.34  If  then,  in  a  thousand 
years  we  have  seen  that  the  temporal  power  instead 
of  bringing  about  pontifical  liberty  rather  complicates 
it,  who  would  venture  reasonably  to  invoke  it?  If, 
at  the  time  when  emperors  and  kings  gloried  in  their 
belief  in  Christ's  religion,  the  temporal  power  was  a 
bait  to  enslave  the  Pontiff,  does  Your  Eminence  be- 
lieve that  he  would  be  left  in  peace,  now  that  kings 
and  princes  take  little  stock  in  religious  questions? 
Besides,  when  the  Papacy  has  had  temporal  power, 
it  has  found  it  nearly  always  necessary  to  ally  itself 
with  some  particular  prince,  as  history  witnesses,35 
and  is  not  this  contrary  to  that  liberty  and  independ- 
ence so  much  longed  for?  If  during  the  glorious 
time  of  the  American  independence  the  Pope  had  ap- 
peared as  the  ally  of  England,  and  had  helped  her, 
how  would  the  American  Catholics  have  received  his 
doctrine  and  his  mandates?  For  the  Church,  ever 
since  she  possessed  temporal  power,  was  nearly  always 
allied  with  some,  while  she  appeared  as  the  enemy  of 
others.36  Sometimes  she  appeared  allied  with  the 
German  Empire,  and  then  the  Church  was  looked 
upon  with  disfavor  by  the  Italian  States;  on  other 
occasions  she  was  allied  with  the  latter,  and  then  the 
disfavor  came  from  Germany.     Just  as  soon  as  she 

83  34  35  36  Rea(j  ^e  same  authorities  mentioned  above. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  189 

appeared  the  friend  .of  France,  the  Spaniards  looked 
on  the  Pope  as  their  enemy;  and  when  she  appeared 
friendly  to  Spain,  France  ignored  the  Pope  and  in- 
sulted him.  We  might  adduce  many  other  reasons 
to  prove  the  same  thing;  but  those  we  have  men- 
tioned are  sufficient  to  proclaim  that  now  in  the  twen- 
tieth century  neither  can  the  Pope  claim  any  right  to 
temporal  dominion,  nor  should  the  Church  favor  his 
acceptance  of  it,  were  it  offered  to  him. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

NOTES   OF  THE   CHURCH. 

IN  the  first  chapters  of  this  work,  we  have  shown 
the  way  to  become  acquainted  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church,  and  in  later  chapters  we  have  ex- 
pounded its  organization.  We  shall  now  examine 
the  characteristics  that  should  be  exhibited  by  that 
Church  to  distinguish  it  as  legitimate  and  Divine.  In 
our  exposition,  we  shall  adopt  the  Catholic  theory. 
We  shall  explain  those  characteristics  as  Romanism 
explains  them;  we  shall  next  apply  them  to  the  Ro- 
man Church,  and  it  will  be  seen  once  more  that  either 
those  attributes  are  without  meaning,  or  that  if  they 
have  any,  the  so-called  Protestant  sects  possess  them 
the  same  as  the  Roman  Church,  and  some  of  them  to 
better  advantage  and  with  more  reason  than  Roman- 
ism. The  latter  in  this  matter,  adopts  a  captious  mode 
of  arguing,  and  ambiguous  language.  It  proclaims  x 
its  notes  as  it  believes  to  have  found  them  right  in  the 
twentieth  century,  it  examines  its  own  present  condi- 
tion, and  then,  proudly  addressing  the  other  Christian 
groups,  says:  You  are  not  one  like  myself,  you  are 
not  holy  as  I  am;  you  are  not  apostolic  like  me;  you 
are  not  visible  as  I  am:  therefore  you  are  either 
schismatic  or  heretical ;  you  are  not  the  true  Church, 

1  See  Bertier :   Notes  of  the  Church.    Cardinal  Vives  :    Same 
head.     Jaugey:    Same  head. 
(190) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  igi 

this  I  alone  can  be,  I  who  possess  exclusively  all  the 
characteristics,  all  the  distinctive  notes,  and  the  true 
ones.  We  could  at  once  dispute  to  Romanism  the 
efficacy  it  attributes  to  that  collection  of  character- 
istics chosen  by  itself  as  a  distinction  from  the  others, 
and  as  proclaiming  itself  true  and  Divine.  We  could 
reply  by  asking:  Where,  and  in  what  part  of  the 
evangelic  or  apostolic  writings,  hast  thou  found  that 
the  Church  should  possess  those  visible  attributes,  and 
that  they  should  have  the  importance  thou  dost  assign 
to  them?  We  have  the  profound  conviction  that  a 
discussion  based  on  this  ground  would  leave  Roman- 
ism in  a  very  bad  plight.  But  our  procedure  will  be 
different;  we  are  going  to  reply  to  Romanism:  We 
admit  thy  characteristic  notes  as  good;  we  are  going 
to  examine  thee  on  those  very  notes,  and  if  thou  dost 
not  appear  cloaked  in  the  robes  of  those  fascinating 
distinctive  marks  which  thou  deniest  to  the  others ;  if 
thy  notes  are  not  fulfilled  in  thyself  except  approxi- 
mately as  they  are  fulfilled  in  the  others ;  if  this  should 
happen,  then  thou  wouldst  have  no  right  to  call  thy- 
self the  only  true  one,  nor  to  dub  the  others  with  the 
insulting  epithet  of  false.  We  will  observe  in  our  dis- 
cussion an  inverse  order  to  the  one  mentioned  above. 
There  we  begin  with  unity  and  end  with  visibility; 
here  we  will  begin  with  visibility  and  end  with  unity. 
Should  the  Church  be  visible?  The  Roman  answers, 
Yes,2   a   large   number   of   Protestants   answer,    No,3 

2  Consult  the  authors  mentioned,  also  Hettinger,  and  Casa- 
nova's Fundamental  Theology:  Head,  Characteristic  Notes  of 
the  Church.     Hurter,  and  Perrone :    Same  head. 

3  Read  Encyclopedia  Britannica :  Heads,  Calvin,  Presbyte- 
rians, Luther,  Lutherans. 

14 


192  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

but  if  we  determine  the  meaning  of  the  affirmation  of 
the  ones,  and  of  the  negation  of  the  others,  it  will  be 
seen  that  both  affirm  the  same  thing:  the  visibility 
denied  by  Protestantism  is  also  denied  by  Romanism, 
and  the  visibility  admitted  by  the  former  is  identical 
with  the  latter's,  in  strict  theology.  If  the  ones  affirm 
and  the  others  deny,  it  is  because  the  question  is  badly 
put,  and  when  affirming  the  Catholics  refer  to  a  point 
different  from  that  denied  by  the  Reformists.  Let  us 
analyze  that  visibility  and  it  will  be  seen  how  they 
agree.  Let  us  ask  the  Reformists,  Why  do  you  deny 
that  the  Church  is  visible?  They  answer,  Because  it 
is  the  meeting  of  the  elect,  and  no  one  knows  their 
number  except  God.4  Let  us  ask  the  Catholics,  Does 
anyone  know  the  number  of  the  elect,  and  they 
also  answer,  No.5  Nobody  knows  them,  nobody  sees 
them,  therefore  both  give  the  same  answer.  Let  us 
follow  this  concordant  process.  Ask  a  Catholic,  What 
principally  constitutes  the  Church?  And  he  will  an- 
swer you,  The  soul 6  which  lives  in  the  grace  and 
friendship  of  God,  in  vivifying  union  with  Christ. 
Put  this  question  to  a  Reformist,  Of  what  does  the 
Church  principally  consist  ?  And  he  will  answer  you  7 
the  same:  In  living  within  the  restoration  produced 
by  Christ  and  incorporated  with  Him  by  justification. 
Upon  these  two  affirmations,  ask  from  both,  Is  the 
Church  visible?  and  you  will  hear  with  pleased  aston- 
ishment both  the  Roman  and  the  Protestant  answer 

4  See  Encyclopedia  Britannica  under  heads  mentioned. 

5  Consult  any  Roman  theologians  mentioned  above,  under 
head:    Number  of  the  Predestinated. 

6  Same  Catholic  authors,  heads,  Soul,  and  Church. 

7  See  Encyclopedia  Britannica :    Heads,  Luther,  and  Calvin. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  I93 

with  one  mind  that  it  is  not.8  The  Roman  says  that 
nobody  knows  or  sees  the  number  of  the  elect;  no- 
body knows  or  sees  what  principally  constitutes  the 
Church,  the  grace  and  the  union  with  Christ ;  because 
nobody  can  affirm  without  incurring  heresy  whether 
it  is  odious  or  lovable.  Then  to  what  is  visibility  re- 
duced? Why,  answers  Romanism,  it  becomes  reduced 
to  an  outward  manifestation  of  faith  and  to  the  re- 
ception of  the  sacraments.  Ask  a  Reformist  to  define 
the  Church  9  and  you  will  observe  with  pleased  sur- 
prise that  his  definition  agrees  with  the  visibility 
claimed  by  the  Catholic.  Let  it  not  be  said  that  the 
Catholic  adds,  "and  obedience  to  the  Pope,"  because 
he  answers  this,  when  he  is  asked  about  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church,  not  when  speaking  of  its  visi- 
bility ; 10  for  he  knows,  if  he  is  well  read,  that  many 
times,  and  during  long  years  it  has  not  been  known 
which  of  the  many  anti-popes  was  the  legitimate  one, 
and,  as  in  the  present  and  in  coming  centuries  the 
same  thing  may  happen  as  in  the  past,  he  has  to  limit 
his  visibility  to  the  same  thing  defined  by  Protestant- 
ism about  the  Church.  You  see  then  that  while  one 
denies  and  the  other  affirms,  both,  when  properly 
questioned,  confess  belief  in  the  same  truth.  On  the 
other  hand  although  this  question  is  theological,  the 
Roman  does  not  look  upon  it  as  dogmatic.  If  he 
should  maintain  that  the   Church   is   not  visible,   he 

8  See  Catholic  theologians  before  mentioned,  head,  Grace. 

9  See  any  of  the  definitions  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  espe- 
cially of  the  Anglican  Methodists  and  Episcopalians. 

10  See  Catholic  authors  already  mentioned  under  Definition 
of  the  Church. 


194  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

would  not  be  guilty  of  heresy,11  since  this  doctrine 
has  not  been  denned  as  dogmatic.  It  does  not 
make,  therefore,  a  marked  line  of  separation  between 
Protestants  and  Romans :  consequently,  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  previously  laid  down,  we  must 
not  delay  longer  on  this  question.  There  is  another 
note,  Apostolicity.  This,  according  to  some  Roman 
theologians,  covers  two  things:  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  apostles  is  taught,  and  that  the  sacerdotal  and 
episcopal  orders  come  without  interruption  from  the 
apostles.12  In  the  chapters  referring  to  the  Pope,  and 
to  the  Bible,  we  have  seen  that  Romanism  is  already 
getting  away  from  the  apostolic  doctrine;  we  shall 
see  the  same  thing  in  speaking  of  many  sacraments 
and  of  many  Roman  precepts.  Just  now  we  shall 
deal  only  with  the  second  proposition,  that  of  apos- 
tolic succession. 

We  have  never  been  able  to  understand  the  efficacy 
attributed  by  Romanism  to  this  characteristic  note, 
because  if  it  were  as  great  as  they  claim,  instead  of 
helping  them  it  would  go  against  them,  and  be  in 
favor  of  the  Oriental  Church.  Which  is  the  only 
apostolic  Church  that  according  to  tradition  conserves 
Romanism  ?  Rome  alone.  The  Orientals  keep  a  large 
number : 13  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Samaria.. 
Athens,  etc.,  etc.  Is  apostolic  succession  as  important 
as  you  say?    In  that  case,  capitulate  before  the  Greek 

11  See  Catholic  authors  already  mentioned  under  Visibility 
of  the  Church. 

12  See  Catholic  authors  already  mentioned  under  Apostolic- 
ity, and  consult  also  Schouppe  and  Casanova. 

13  Consult  the  historians :  Baronio,  Rohrbacher,  Hergen- 
rother,  Natal  Alexander  and  Rivas :   About  the  Apostles. 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     I95 

Church.  You  have  only  one  Church,  while  the  Greeks 
possess  them  without  number;  you  possess  your  or- 
ders as  coming  from  Peter  and  Paul,  and  they  pos- 
sess theirs  as  coming  from  Peter,  Paul,  St.  James, 
St.  John,  etc.,  etc.  Is  that  characteristic  a  token  of 
security  and  certainty?  Then,  why  do  you  condemn 
the  Greek  Church?  Is  not  that  characteristic  a  token 
that  the  Greek  Church  is  legitimate  and  true?  In 
that  case  it  helps  you  less.  If  apostolic  succession 
from  the  Twelve  is  not  enough,  according  to  you, 
for  the  Greek  Church  to  call  itself  apostolic,  how 
can  the  succession  from  two  out  of  twelve  be  suf- 
ficient for  you  to  contentedly  call  yourselves  apostolic? 
Is  not  the  whole  larger  than  a  part?  Do  you  not 
realize  that  to  exaggerate  these  things  is  to  uncover 
your  weak  point,  and  to  prove  that  the  schismatics 
are  more  a  true  Church  than  yourselves?  But  let  us 
put  aside  not  only  the  reasons  of  the  Romanists  which 
we  have  shown  not  to  have  any  foundation,  but  also 
even  the  most  insignificant  pretext.  Say  they:  our 
orders  come  to  us  from  Peter  and  Paul  by  an  un- 
broken chain,  therefore  they  are  apostolic.  I  do  not 
suppose  there  is  any  Catholic  so  simple,  nor  so  illiter- 
ate, as  to  believe  that  it  is  the  apostles  in  person  who 
at  the  present  time  ordain  and  consecrate,  therefore 
those  words  mean  that,  now  nearly  one  thousand 
nine  hundred  years  ago,  the  apostles  ordained  their 
disciples,  and  these  their  successors,  and  so  on  till 
Pius  X.  Now  then,  who  sent  the  missionaries  to  the 
nations  that  are  at  present  separated  from  Rome? 
The  bishops,  the  apostles'  successors.  Who  ordained 
them?      The    episcopate,    successor    to    the    apostles. 


I96  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Therefore  on  this  side  the  linking  takes  place  in  an 
identical  manner.  The  ones  are  as  apostolic  as  the 
others.  Perhaps  some  inveterate  Romanist  may  say: 
But  according  to  a  bull  of  Leo  XIII 14  priestly  orders 
are  null  among  Protestants,  because  there  was  an  in- 
terruption later.  In  the  first  place  it  may  be  answered 
that  the  document  is  not  infallible,  even  for  Catholics, 
it  is  simply  another  opinion  in  the  matter,  it  is  the 
testimony  of  a  doctor  in  theology,  that  may  be  worth 
something  according  to  the  weight  of  the  reasons  al- 
leged, and  no  more.  Without  claiming  by  our  hypo- 
thetical affirmation,  to  deaden  in  any  way  the  ordina- 
tion of  Protestants,  we  will  assume  the  Romanists' 
reason  to  be  good,  and  we  will  ask  them  this :  Then, 
according  to  your  doctrine,  if  a  Greek  or  Roman 
bishop  who  suffered  no  interruption  ordains  the 
Protestants  a  second  time,  would  the  latter  become 
as  apostolic  as  yourselves?  In  that  case  strange  is 
the  note  you  invoke  to  declare  yourselves  sole  and 
true,  when  at  any  moment  they  fancy  they  can  prove 
to  you  that,  even  on  the  face  of  your  own  doctrine, 
they  are  equally  apostolic  with  you.  But  some  one 
may  reply:  but  from  the  moment  there  was  an  inter- 
ruption, there  was  an  apostolic  break,  impossible  to 
repair.  Misfortune  seems  to  follow  in  the  wake  of 
Romanism  in  choosing  its  objections.  Then  during 
the  schisms  that  at  one  time  or  another  lasted  one 
hundred  years,  what  became  of  your  apostolic  tradi- 
tion? If  all  the  Popes  ordained,  which  among  them 
was  the  legitimate  successor  of  the  apostles?  If  the 
ones  excommunicated  the  others  which  of  them  was 

14  Leo  XIII :    Encyclical  on  Protestant  Orders. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  I97 

the  mysterious  ring  that  linked  with  Peter?  And 
when  the  Council  of  Constance  removes  them  all, 
which  was  the  link  that  continued  the  chain?  There- 
fore if  those  interruptions  did  not  destroy  your  apos- 
tolicity,  how  are  we  to  suppose  that  it  is  destroyed 
in  the  others?  But  why  tarry  over  a  question  that 
in  substance  can  mean  nothing  to  them,  since  it  exists 
more  nearly  without  interruption  in  the  Churches  that 
Romanism  confesses  not  to  be  the  true  ones?  There- 
fore according  to  the  Roman  doctrine,  the  question 
of  apostolicity  is  like  Bernard's  sword,  that  neither 
pricks  nor  cuts:  it  is  a  scarecrow  to  frighten  the  un- 
wary and  fascinate  old  women.  But  for  anyone  ac- 
quainted with  ecclesiastical  history,  it  is  an  amphi- 
bology without  sense.  Let  us  see  if  they  are  more 
fortunate  in  catholicity. 

Here  Romanism  does  look  happy,  just  like  a  child 
wearing  new  shoes.  It  examines  its  latest  statistics, 
consults  maps,  and  on  seeing  that  its  followers  are 
reckoned  by  the  hundreds  of  millions ;  on  considering 
that  its  missionaries  are  traveling  over  all  the  seas, 
and  that  its  priests  are  celebrating  their  high  functions 
in  all  parts  of  the  world,  rilled  with  arrogant  satis- 
faction it  exclaims :  You  see  that  I  am  Catholic,  that 
is  to  say  universal;  you  see  how  my  doctrine  is 
professed  by  the  subjects  of  every  nation,  by  the 
people  of  every  race.  Roman  theologians,  we  have 
agreed  that  catholicity  is  a  distinguishing  note  of  the 
Church,  and  not  alone  in  the  twentieth  century,  but 
also  in  the  first  centuries.  Are  we  to  believe  that  in 
the  first  centuries  you  had  ministers  in  China,  in  India 
and  in  Japan?     Are  we  to  believe  that  your  famous 


I98  .       ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

missionaries,  before  the  discovery  of  America,  had 
already  evangelized  it?  Are  we  to  believe  that 
Oceania  was  already  your  patrimony  before  it  be- 
longed to  England?  Here  is  the  captious  way  the 
Romanist  answers :  Ah !  you  are  a  set  of  ignorants ; 15 
my  catholicity  in  strict  theology  does  not  mean  that 
ever  since  the  first  centuries  my  religion  was  preached 
all  over  the  world,  but  that  my  doctrine  is  of  so  ex- 
pansive a  nature  that  it  possesses  efficacy  and  poten- 
tiality to  diffuse  and  spread  itself  everywhere.  An 
admirable  deduction  !  A  portentous  discovery !  Then 
that  prerogative  has  made  a  fine  show !  If  by  cath- 
olicity we  are  to  understand  that  you  are  in  power 
and  possess  the  necessary  efficacy  to  have  your  dogma 
and  your  morals  believed  and  practised  all  over 
the  world,  you  may  take  that  characteristic  off  your 
standard  as  a  distinctive  mark,  because  any  congre- 
gation, even  any  secret  society,  like  Free  Masonry 
for  instance,  possesses  that  potentiality  and  efficacy. 
Protestantism  is  of  yesterday  compared  with  your  an- 
tiquity, but  it  has  translated  the  Bible  into  more  lan- 
guages than  you  have.  It  reckons  scarcely  a  few 
centuries  of  existence,  as  a  separate  organization,  yet 
it  has  missionaries  and  churches  in  almost  every  place 
where  you  have  them.  That  is  to  say,  in  these  hun- 
dred years  it  has  covered  the  road  that  it  has  taken 
you  the  trifle  of  twenty  centuries  to  cover.  Therefore 
the  effectiveness  and  its  probability  have  turned  out  to 
be  more  energetic  and  far-reaching  than  yours.  They 
therefore  also   show   themselves   more   Catholic  than 

15  See    Hettinger,    and    Casanova    under    head,    Catholicity. 
Jaugey:    Same  head. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  1 99 

you.  To  be  quite  frank,  it  becomes  wearisome  and 
dull  to  speak  on  such  empty  nonsense.  Let  us  close 
this  insipid  question  by  proclaiming  that  visibility,  in- 
voked by  Romanism  as  a  distinctive  mark  of  the  true 
Church,  does  not  help  in  any  way,  because  in  strict 
theology  its  visibility  is  identical  with  the  Protestant 
visibility;  that  the  other  note  dubbed  apostolicity,  if 
it  proves  anything,  should  prove,  not  that  they  are  the 
true  Church,  but  that  the  Orientals  are  such ;  that 
catholicity  instead  of  being  the  exclusive  mark  of  Ro- 
manism is  an  attribute  general  to  all  assemblies  of 
honest  men,  professing  a  doctrine  and  understanding 
that  its  diffusion  is  for  the  good  of  mankind.  It  re- 
sults, then,  that  such  notes  do  not  in  any  way  prove 
that  Romanism  is  the  true  Church.  We  have  only 
two  notes  left,  sanctity  and  unity.  These  are  well 
worthy  of  serious  treatment  and  for  that  reason  we 
will  devote  to  them  the  following  two  chapters. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

SANCTITY  OF  THE  ROMAN   CHURCH. 

THIS  is  one  of  the  prerogatives  that  the  Roman 
Church  invokes  with  greater  show  of  truth  than 
any  other.  With  what  an  innocent  satisfaction  it 
contemplates  its  churches,  overflowing  with  saints! 
With  what  triumphant  cheerfulness  it  acknowledges 
its  flock  of  holy  men,  and  proudly  exclaims:  There 
you  have  our  people,  our  family,  there  you  have  our 
order!  What  sect  can  boast  of  evangelical  apostles 
like  the  seraph  from  Alverna,  St.  Francis  of  Assisi? 
What  religious  congregation  can  present  such  meek 
and  penitent  prelates  as  Charles  Borromeo,  or  as  the 
wise  and  sweet  Francis  of  Sales?  What  Christian 
profession  can  exhibit  men  as  illustrious  and  quiet  as 
St.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio,  and  a  St.  Philip  de 
Neri  ? x  In  what  other  group  of  Christians  take  place 
the  marvels  and  divine  gifts  that  each  century,  each 
season  and  every  day  we  see  in  the  great  Roman 
community?  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  grant  so 
captivating  and  sweet  as  this  one,  nor  one  more  in- 
tensely seductive  than  this  sublime  prerogative.  It 
might  be  said,  that  ninety  per  cent  of  the  Protestants 
recently  converted  to  Roman  Catholicism  have  been 

1  See  Jaugey :    Head,   Sanctity  of  the  Church.      See  same 
text  in  Hettinger's  and  Casanova's  Fundamental  Theologies. 
Also  same  text  in  Hurter's  and  Father  Fernandez'  Dogmatic 
Theologies. 
(200) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  201 

dazzled  into  conversion  by  that  charming  ornament. 
Read  the  -  writings  of  the  two  illustrious  Protest- 
ants, Cardinal  Newman  and  Father  Faber,  at  the  time 
of  their  conversion,  and  also  of  the  three  important 
groups  recently  converted  here  in  North  America,  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  in  reality  what  most  impresses 
and  moves  them  is  the  so-called  sanctity  which  they 
believe  glitters  in  the  Roman  Church.  We  can  assert 
that  what  principally  induced  us  to  write  this  short 
work  was  our  desire  to  clear  up  this  view.  It  was  to 
sound  a  cry  of  warning  to  the  Protestants,  not  to  be 
misled  by  such  fleeting  gleams  nor  take  for  genuine, 
divine  light  that  which  is  only  a  mere  will-o'-the-wisp, 
and  which,  moth-like,  perishes  by  being  burned  in  its 
false  blaze.  Here  more  than  in  any  other  discussion 
we  shall  endeavor  to  take  our  stand  on  the  most 
genuine  Romanist  doctrine;  here  with  greater  severity 
than  anywhere  else,  will  we  draw  aside  that  halluci- 
nating curtain  to  enable  the  Protestant  to  realize  the 
sad  and  degrading  littleness  of  the  sanctity  in  which 
the  Roman  Church  lives.  We  feel  sure  that  the  kind 
reader  who  peruses  this  work  will  be  horrified  and  un- 
willing to  enter  a  society  in  which,  if  anything  appears 
true  according  to  Romanism,  it  is  that  damnation  and 
hell  are  the  final  end  of  the  Christian  people.  We  feel 
certain  that  the  most  decisive  argument  concerning 
the  error  in  which  Romanism  lives  and  into  which  it 
has  plunged  its  followers,  is  to  invoke  and  falsely  to 

2  Read  the  life  of  Father  Faber;  also  the  writings  of  Car- 
dinal Newman  immediately  before,  and  after  his  conversion. 
Letters  from  the  Celibate  Congregation  converted  this  year 
to  Catholicism.  Letter  signed  by  some  Episcopalian  ministers, 
on  becoming  converted  to  Catholicism,  this  year  at  Baltimore. 


202  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

assume  a  sanctity  that  does  not  exist  except  in  the 
most  rare  and  questionable  cases,  while  the  masses 
and  the  large  majority  of  Roman  Christians,  if  their 
doctrine  is  true,  live  in  a  state  of  damnation  and  are 
manifestly  wicked.  There  is  no  point  on  which  the 
harsh  language  of  Christ  can  be  better  applied  to  Ro- 
manism than  this  specious  question  of  sanctity,  when 
He  said,  speaking  of  the  Pharisees:  "Whited  sepul- 
chres without,  but  within,  bones,  decomposition  and 
corruption."  3  Fear  not,  most  excellent  Cardinal  Gib- 
bons, that  in  order  to  demonstrate  our  thesis  we  may 
have  to  descend  to  the  mud  of  scandal.  Our  aim  is 
to  write  a  serious  work,  and  we  wish  to  keep  within 
the  august  serenity  of  ideas  and  the  honest  field  of 
reason.  And  pray  do  not  believe  that  we  should 
be  lacking  in  abundant  and  trustworthy  material  if 
we  wished  for  any.  Your  Eminence,  who  knows 
the  inside  of  the  Church,  will  be  able  to  determine 
whether  I,  who  have  acted  as  apostolic  missionary 
during  many  years,  who  have  been  judge  on  ecclesi- 
astical questions,  instructing  counsel  in  numerous 
sensational  ecclesiastical  trials,  visiting  clergyman  of 
various  convents  of  friars  and  nuns,  who  have  pre- 
pared for  spiritual  exercise  some  two  thousand  clerics, 
many  prebendaries  and  some  bishops — Your  Emi- 
nence, I  repeat,  who  must  know  the  ins  and  outs  of 
the  Church,  will  be  able  to  deduce  whether  or  not 
I  possess  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Roman 
conscience  and  its  collective  form,  whether  or  not  I 
know  of  scandals  to  bring  the  blush  to  the  face  of  the 
greatest  libertine,  and  crimes  enough  to  write  a  book 
3  Matt,  xxiii.  27.     Luke  xi.  44. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  203 

as  entertaining  and  voluminous  as  the  work  of  the 
famous  observer  and  police  chief  of  Paris,  Goron ! 
Your  modest  eyes,  unaccustomed  to  read  about  the 
celibacy  of  the  Popes,  and  your  chaste  ears,  accus- 
tomed to  hear  that  they  had  neither  sons  nor  nephews, 
will  have  no  reproach  to  address  to  me.4  I  will  apply 
to  your  theology,  to  your  morals,  to  your  statistics, 
to  substantiate  my  thesis.  To  him  who  came  away 
from  his  own  home,  where  he  could  float  on  plenty, 
but  now  lives  almost  in  penury,  who  has  scorned 
lucrative  ecclesiastical  offices  in  Spain  and  in  America 
and  would  prefer  hard  manual  labor,  and  the  scanti- 
ness of  poverty  rather  than  betray  his  loyalty  to  his 
conscience,  the  role  of  scandalous  libeler  would  be 
most  ill-fitting  even  though  he  could  prove  the  scan- 
dal. I  live  very  far  apart  from  Roman  fanaticism  and 
from  the  calumnies  of  many  sects ;  my  ambition  is  to 
proclaim  the  truth  at  any  cost;  my  aim  is  to  find  out 
if  it  be  possible  to  bring  about  harmony  and  peace 
among  the  numerous  Christian  congregations,  depriv- 
ing Romanism  of  its  inveterate  haughtiness  and  its 
traditional  hypocrisies;  and  the  final  result  will  be  to 
say  to  the  crowd  of  European  clergymen  that  I  have 
next  to  me,  the  famous  words  of  Melchior  Cano : 5 
" Curavimus  Babylonem  et  non  est  sanata,  derelin- 
qucmus  earn"  (We  cured  Babylon  but  she  did  not 
heal,  let  us  give  her  up).  Let  us  abandon  her  and 
endeavor  to  join  our  brethren  to  fight  the  big  battle 
against  Romanism ;  and  if  as  I  hope,  the  Reformists 

4  Cardinal   Gibbons :     Chapter   on   Temporal    Power   of   the 
Popes. 

5  MS.  report  of  Melchior  Cano:    Preserved  in  the  National 
Library  at  Madrid,  under  heads:    MS.  referring  to  Philip  II. 


204  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

receive  my  words  in  all  sincerity  and  sympathy,  then 
Your  Eminence  will  see  how  my  voice,  instead  of 
preaching  in  a  desert,  will  be  the  voice  to  call  in  hun- 
dreds, and  probably  thousands,  who  are  anxiously 
waiting  for  one  courageously  to  raise  high  the  stand- 
ard, to  surround  and  follow  him.6  Let  us,  then,  take 
up  our  subject.  The  Roman  doctrine  divides  the 
Church  into  two  groups,  the  body  and  the  soul.7  By 
the  body  of  the  Church  is  meant  those  who  having 
once  entered  it  through  baptism,  have  not  left  it  on 
account  of  any  anathema  or  notorious  heresy.  It 
calls  the  soul  of  the  Church,  those  who  live  in  a  state 
of  grace,  and  who  being  free  of  mortal  sin,  are  clothed 
in  supernatural  charity.  It  is  evident  that  when  the 
Church  speaks  of  sanctity,  it  refers  to  the  latter  and 
not  to  the  former.  In  the  Roman  doctrine  anyone 
living  in  mortal  sin  is  a  dead  member,  and  everything 
he  does  while  in  that  lamentable  condition  is  entirely 
useless  in  the  eyes  of  heaven.  Furthermore,  all  his 
good  deeds  performed  before  sinning  die  with  his  sin 
and  are  lost,  with  only  this  difference,  that  whatever 
good  he  did  before  sinning  and  lost  with  the  sin,  is 
not  entirely  dead  but  only  dulled,  and  can  revive  (we 
trust  the  reader  will  pardon  the  expression,  which  is 
classical  within  Romanism),  whereas  what  is  done 
while  in  sin,  however  great,  remains  dead  for  ever. 

6  Read  the  works  of  the  famous  Catholic  priest  Pey  Ordeix, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  in  Spain  the  number  of  secular  and 
regular  clergymen  who  are  anxious  to  leave  Romanism  is 
very  large. 

7  Consult  the  following  theologians :  Perrone,  Hurter,  Het- 
tinger, Casanova,  Bertier,  Schouppe,  Cardinal  Vives,  under 
text,  Body  and  Soul  of  the  Church. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  205 

Let  us  illustrate  this  doctrine  by  a  few  examples.8 
Suppose  a  most  austere  man,  having  spent  all  his  life 
in  the  most  complete  innocence,  who  has  done  much 
penance,  but  who  in  the  last  years  of  his  life  takes  a 
fancy  to  eat  meat  during  one  of  the  days  of  vigil,  or 
fasting,  imposed  by  the  Church.  Well,  that  man  lost 
all  he  did.  If  that  man  does  not  confess,  and  is  not 
absolved  of  his  sin,  he  will  be  as  much  damned  as  a 
man  who  spent  all  his  life  steeped  in  vice.  Nothing 
would  it  avail  him  to  have  passed  many  years  in 
angel-like  innocence;  his  long  fasts  will  not  save  him, 
nor  his  trying  privations,  however  keen  and  numerous. 
One  single  mouthful  of  meat  on  days  prescribed  by 
the  Church  as  fasting  days  effaces  all,  kills  every- 
thing, leaves  him  in  the  lamentable  situation  of  a 
reprobate.  Take  another  case:  if  one  fails  to  observe 
any  of  the  countless  minutiae  ordered  by  the  Church, 
though  he  gives  alms  liberally  to  the  poor,  dresses  in 
haircloth,  shuns  the  world,  and  shuts  himself  up  in 
the  most  isolated  deserts;  or  devotes  his  life  to  the 
wellbeing  of  mankind,  either  attending  to  the  sick  in 
hospitals,  or  teaching — it  avails  him  nothing.  Do 
you  think  it  would  help  him  in  any  way?  Well,  in 
Catholic  theology  he  has  done  nothing,  absolutely 
nothing,  neither  toward  reaching  heaven  nor  to  free 
himself  from  hell.9  All  his  deeds  are  entirely  fruit- 
less, entirely  dead,  in  the  supernatural  order.  So  as 
to   understand   the   gravity   of   these   assertions,   and 

8  Read  any  of  the  innumerable  works  on  Catholic  Morals, 
under  Mortal  Sin. 

9  See  Gury :    Head,  Moral  Cases,  and  the  works  on  Morals 
by  Elbel  and  Esporer:    Head,  Practical  Cases  of  Mortal  Sin. 


206  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  deplorable  condition  in  which  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic remains,  as  regards  the  Protestant,  it  is  necessary 
to  go  over,  if  only  slightly,  the  almost  countless  ac- 
cumulation of  precepts  that  Romanism  has  added  to 
those  imposed  by  the  Gospels.  The  Roman  Catholic 
has  so  many  individuals  to  reckon  with,  who  can 
fling  him  to  hell  with  as  many  injunctions  as  superior 
hierarchical  officers  can  dictate.10  To  the  truths  and 
precepts  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  may  be  added 
the  so-called  commandments  of  the  Church,  and  the 
constitutional  encyclicals  and  addresses  of  the  Popes; 
then  comes  an  endless  series  of  resolutions  from  the 
so-called  Sacred  Congregations;  these  are  accompan- 
ied by  the  dogmatic  and  moral  decrees  of  the  uni- 
versal councils;  and  as  part  of  a  given  diocese,  the 
Church  has  to  obey  what  the  bishop  orders  in  his 
pastorals,  what  he  prescribes  in  his  synodical  laws.11 
And  if  this  were  not  enough,  one  must  still  listen  to 
the  moralists,  who  with  a  spirit  entirely  rabbinical  and 
with  minutiae  of  details  quite  pharisaical,  will  investi- 
gate the  inmost  thought,12  the  slightest  emotions,  the 
most  innocent  social  recreations,  to  find  out  every- 
where the  cursed  germ  of  sin,  the  motive,  to  condemn. 
But  what  most  appals  and  degrades  the  unfortu- 
nate Catholic  people,  is  the  knowledge  that  all  this 
compels  them  under  penalty   of  eternal  punishment. 

10  Consult  any  of  the  canonical  works  under  head,  Legis- 
lators and  Superiors.  On  Canonical  Law,  Bouix  may  be  con- 
sulted and  on  Morals,  Cardinal  Vives. 

11  Same  authorities. 

12  See  any  of  the  works  on  Morals  approved  by  Romanism 
and  their  exhaustive  exaggeration  will  become  apparent.  We 
recommend  especially  Concina's  Moral  Theology. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  207 

Anyone  eating  meat  on  Friday  runs  the  same  risk 
of  condemnation 13  as  one  denying  the  mystery  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.  He  who  does  not  attend  mass  on 
days  of  precept  is  in  the  same  danger  of  reproba- 
tion as  if  he  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ.  He  who 
reads  the  Bible  translated  into  his  own  language  is 
guilty  of  a  mortal  sin,14  that  can  plunge  him  into 
hell  just  the  same  as  if  he  had  committed  the  most 
heinous  crime.  While  speaking  of  this  question  we 
must  ask  our  kind  reader  to  allow  us  to  correct  some 
of  Cardinal  Gibbons'  words.  In  the  chapter  quoted 
in  the  footnote,15  this  prelate  speaks  as  if  all  the  faith- 
ful were  allowed  to  read  the  Bible.  We  cannot  get 
over  your  unspeakable  simplicity,  Cardinal  Gibbons. 
Is  Your  Eminence  unaware  of  the  innumerable  pro- 
hibitions issued  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs?  Is  Your 
Eminence  unaware  of  the  latest  rule  of  the  Index 
published  and  sanctioned  by  Leo  XIII?  Is  Your 
Eminence  unaware  of  rules  V,  VI,  VII  and  VIII  of 
said  Index,16  by  which  it  allows  theologians  only  to 
read  the  Bible?  and  even  these  under  certain  condi- 
tions? Is  not  Your  Eminence  aware  that  the  simple, 
faithful  person  who  reads  a  Bible  not  approved  and 
annotated  by  the  Church  commits  a  grave  sin  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  doctrine?  Do  the  American  Catho- 
lics enjoy,  perhaps,  some  special  privilege?  If  this 
exists,  why  does  not  Your  Eminence  mention  it  ?    And 

13  All   the    Catholic  moralists    without   exception   on   Absti- 
nence. 

u  By-laws  of  the  Index,  promulgated  by  Leo  XIII  under 
the  gravest  of  censures. 

15  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  chap,  viii,  espe- 
cially pages  116  and  117. 

18  By-laws  of  the  Index,  already  mentioned. 
15 


208  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

if  it  does  not  exist,  why  does  Your  Eminence  speak  in 
a  manner  likely  to  lead  the  faithful  into  error,  and 
non-believers  into  mistakes? 

But  to  continue.  It  has  been  shown  that  Roman 
Catholics,  in  order  to  attain  their  salvation,  must  ob- 
serve an  almost  indefinite  ensemble  of  precepts  that 
the  Roman  Church  has  added  to  the  easy,  simple  and 
pure  morals  of  Christ.17  It  has  also  been  shown 
that  the  Pope  over  all  the  Church,  the  bishops  in 
their  respective  dioceses,18  and  even  the  simple  su- 
perior in  all  his  community,  and  the  common  abbess 
among  her  nuns,  are  invested  with  a  power  to  con- 
demn, similar  to  that  of  Christ.  They  all  think 
themselves  authorized  to  say  to  poor  humanity:  If 
thou  dost  not  obey  my  commandments,  the  redemp- 
tion will  not  avail  thee  anything ;  if  thou  dost  not  ful- 
fill the  smallest  of  my  precepts,  the  blood  of  Christ 
is  useless  to  thee.19  Can  any  slavery  be  more  appal- 
ling? Can  any  greater  aberration  be  conceived  than 
to  suppose  that  the  first  puppet  can  add  anything  to 
the  divine  law  of  Christ,  and  frustrate  His  universal 
and  complete  redemption?  The  Gospels  relate  that 
when  Christ  saw  the  innovations  added  to  the  law 
by  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  on  contemplating 
that  the  unfortunate  people  could  not  carry  so  heavy 

"All  the  Romanist  canonists  and  moralists  without  any 
exception. 

M  In  Mexico,  for  instance,  the  bishopric  reproves  as  a  very 
grave  and  reserved  sin,  fathers  sending  their  sons  to  gov- 
ernment schools.  Read  the  synodal  by-laws  of  the  diocese 
of  Puebla,  and  Leo  XIII's  encyclical  condemning  the  non- 
Catholic  schools. 

"Any  of  the  Catholic  canonists  or  moralists  before  men- 
tioned. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  200, 

a  load,  He  turned  to  them  in  holy  ire  and  exclaimed: 
Race  of  vipers,  hypocrites,  you  have  made  the  ob- 
servance of  my  holy  law  impossible.  You  wicked  men, 
under  cover  of  your  human  traditions,  you  have  in- 
validated the  divine  law.20  Anyone  reading  the  Ro- 
man moral  law  and  familiar  with  its  rabbinical  minu- 
tiae; anyone  capable  of  comparing  the  teaching  of 
the  Synagogue  with  the  teaching  of  Romanism,  will 
see  that  Christ's  words  are  applicable  to  the  latter 
with  even  greater  reason  than  to  the  former,  and 
that  the  deplorable  consequences  which  this  has  pro- 
duced are  identical  in  both  congregations.  As  the 
Israelites  did  not  observe  the  law  because  they  could 
not,  so  in  the  same  way  the  Catholics  do  not  and 
cannot  observe  the  laws  imposed  by  Romanism. 
We  are  now  on  the  capital  point  of  our  discussion, 
and  we  beg  the  reader  to  examine  our  reasons  with 
all  possible  impartiality  and  seriousness. 

One  of  the  most  fundamental  precepts  of  Roman- 
ism and  one  of  the  practices  most  indispensable  to 
sanctification  and  salvation  is  the  annual  confession. 
It  may  be  affirmed  according  to  Romanism  that  any- 
one not  observing  this  precept  is  outside  of  sanctity, 
and  is  in  imminent  danger  of  damnation.  Now  then : 
what  do  ecclesiastical  statistics  say  concerning  the 
reception  of  this  sacrament?21  We  will  limit  our- 
selves to  Spain,  and  to  two  dioceses  whose  statisti- 
cal  data   we  take   from   such   a   reliable  authority   as 

20  Read  Matt.  xv.  3-15.  Mark  vii.  1-11.  Luke  xi.  38,  46. 
Matt,  xxiii. 

21  Anyone  may  consult  for  pleasure  any  of  the  private  sta- 
tistics in  the  dioceses  where  they  are  kept,  on  this  subject. 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  reality  is  still  sadder. 


210  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Cardinal  Sancha,  the  present  Primate  of  that  coun- 
try; we  will  add  to  these  data  many  others  belong- 
ing to  many  important  peoples  and  dioceses.  Let  it 
not  be  forgotten  that  Spain  is  considered  as  one  of 
the  most  godly  nations  on  earth.  Anyone  traveling 
it  from  north  to  south  and  east  to  west ;  anyone 
counting  the  number  of  its  convents  of  nuns  and  com- 
munities of  friars;  anyone  contemplating  the  num- 
ber of  its  cathedrals,  sumptuous  temples,  venerable 
sanctuaries,  devout  and  pious  crosses  planted  in  val- 
leys and  on  hilltops,  in  villages,  towns,  and  cities, 
will  understand  that  the  mother  of  Teresa  de  Jesus 
and  Ignatius  Loyola,  Domingo  de  Guzman  and  St. 
Joseph  of  Calasanze,  is  not  in  vain  called  the  pious 
and  fervent  Roman.  Therefore  the  statistical  data 
gathered  in  Spain  may  be  applied  to  other  Latin 
countries  with  the  certainty  that  in  the  latter  they 
will  not  be  found  more  favorable,  but  entirely  the 
contrary.  Look,  then,  at  the  information  collected  by 
Cardinal  Sancha  in  Madrid  and  in  Valencia,  in  which 
dioceses  he  was  prelate.22  In  Madrid,  the  number 
of  men  who  confess  annually  does  not  reach  five  per 
cent,  and  in  Valencia  they  do  not  exceed  twelve  per 
cent.  Although  the  north  of  Spain  is  somewhat  bet- 
ter than  the  center  and  the  east,  we  have  against 
these  the  south  and  the  west,  which  are  still  worse 
than  the  east  and  the  center.  In  some  large  cities 
like  Barcelona  and  Alicante  the  figures  are  still 
lower.23  There  are  dioceses  like  Cadiz  where  the  men 
scarcely  ever  confess.24     Comparing  and  connecting 

22  Statistical  information  by  His  Eminence  Sefior  Sancha. 
23 ^Consult  the  prelates  and  clergy  of  the  mentioned  city. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  211 

all  the  data  and  endeavoring  to  favor  rather  than  to 
diminish  the  figures,  it  may  be  reckoned  that  at  most 
ten  per  cent  confess  annually.  Supposing  that  they 
all  make  good  confessions,  which,  given  the  numer- 
ous rules  imposed  by  Romanism,  is  a  moral  impossi- 
bility,25 we  should  find  that  barely  ten  per  cent  enter 
the  soul  of  the  Church,  if  only  momentarily,  and 
remain,  if  but  for  a  few  days,  in  a  state  of  grace  and 
are  in  a  capacity  to  be  sanctified.  But  as  the  ma- 
jority of  them,  say  without  exaggeration  ninety  per 
cent,  will  not  confess  again  for  another  year,  and 
within  a  few  short  weeks  will  have  once  more  in- 
curred mortal  sin,  and  will  be  dead  members  of  the 
Church,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  deduct  from  that 
ten  per  cent  living  habitually  incorporated  with  Christ 
and  in  a  state  of  grace,  another  nine,  who  having 
incurred  mortal  sin  for  failing  to  keep  some  of  the 
innumerable  precepts  of  the  Church  have  lost  their 
communication  with  Christ,  and  their  share  of  the 
divine  grace  which  is  supposed  to  be  deposited  in 
the  Church.  Anyone  having  acted  as  missionary 
and  lenten  confessor  knows  that  the  data  given  are 
rather  exaggerated  in  favor  of  Romanism,  than 
against  it.  Taking  this  broad  information  as  a  basis, 
let  us  suppose  that  all  the  Catholic  countries  in  the 

25  Read  the  numerical  and  specific  distinction  of  sins,  and 
it  will  be  seen  how  it  is  almost  morally  impossible  for  the 
faithful  to  confess  properly.  Consult  Elbel,  and  Gury,  under 
Practical  Cases,  in  this  matter.  From  this  doctrine  it  is  de- 
duced that  ordinarily  speaking  Christians  not  only  live  in  a. 
state  of  mortal  sin,  but  that  the  majority  of  them  commit 
millions  of  grave  sins  in  the  course  of  the  year.  Just  for 
pleasure,  reckon  up  on  the  basis  of  the  Roman  doctrine,  and 
it  will  be  seen  there  is  no  exaggeration. 


212  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

world  can  be  equalized  to  Spain,  by  which  we  do 
not  think  we  do  any  harm  to  Romanism,  since  the 
majority  of  nations  are  in  a  more  deplorable  condi- 
tion. Let  us  add  up  the  numerous  millions  of  Ro- 
man Catholics,  and  let  us  suppose  that  they  reach  two 
hundred  and  fifty  million,  which  would  be  in  favor 
of  the  number.  According  to  our  information  and 
the  Roman  Morals,  two  hundred  and  forty-eight  mil- 
lion five  hundred  thousand  live  in  a  habitual  state  of 
reprobation,  are  dead  members  of  Christ,  do  not 
ordinarily  share  in  the  gifts  of  grace.  Only  one 
million  five  hundred  thousand  live  with  probabilities, 
not  of  extraordinary  sanctity,  but  of  probable  salva- 
tion. For  the  others  it  is  not  wise  to  hope,  because 
according  to  Roman  authorities  those  who  habitu- 
ally live  in  sin  are  certain  to  be  condemned.  Is  it 
not  then  the  greatest  of  sarcasms  for  the  Church  to 
call  itself  holy?  Is  it  not  the  greatest  falsity  to  apply 
to  itself  the  mark  of  sanctity,  when  according  to  its 
own  morals  ninety-nine  per  cent  live  in  a  state  of 
condemnation,  are  members  of  Satan  and  future  citi- 
zens of  hell?  What  matters  it  that  now  and  again 
there  appears  an  enlightened  head  noted  by  his  vir- 
tues, if  all  around  him  there  exist  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions of  reprobates  and  future  damned  ones?  Will 
the  sands  of  Sahara  cease  to  be  called  arid  deserts, 
though  now  and  again  we  may  meet  a  small  oasis? 
Can  you  call  a  garden  flowery  in  which  one  million 
five  hundred  thousand  rose  bushes  show  small  buds 
by  the  side  of  two  hundred  and  forty-eight  million 
five  hundred  thousand  decayed  and  dried-up  rose- 
bushes?   Would  you  call  a  nation  wholesome,  where 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  213 

side  by  side  with  one  million  five  hundred  thousand 
healthy  ones  there  lay  devoured  by  leprosy  two  hun- 
dred and  forty-eight  million  five  hundred  thousand 
wretches?  Would  you  venture  to  call  a  nation  civil- 
ized containing  one  million  five  hundred  thousand 
who  can  read  and  write  and  two  hundred  and  forty- 
eight  million  five  hundred  thousand  who  can  neither 
read  nor  write,  nor  are  even  on  the  way  to  learn? 
And  would  you  dare  to  call  your  congregation  and 
Church  holy  when  according  to  your  own  doctrine 
the  proportion  between  good  and  bad  is  one  million 
five  hundred  thousand  of  the  first,  against  two  hun- 
dred and  forty-eight  million  five  hundred  thousand  of 
the  second?  Do  you  intend  to  sneer  at  logic  and 
mankind?  Have  you  lost  all  points  of  honor  and 
shame  ? 

Some  Roman  may  perhaps  reply:  The  calculations 
are  badly  made:  thou  speakest  of  men  only,  and  in 
the  Church  there  are  also  women  and  children  among 
whom  the  same  proportion  should  not  be  adopted. 
We  attempt  the  correction ;  but  even  that  does  not 
alter  thy  deplorable  and  appalling  situation.  Dost 
thou,  pharisaical  Roman,  ignore  that  from  twelve  on 
the  child,  according  to  thy  strict  doctrine,  ordinarily 
lives  in  mortal  sin  more  frequently  than  mature  man? 
And  between  that  age  and  his  cradle,  is  his  innocence 
perchance  the  fruit  of  thy  doctrine?  the  effect  of 
nature?  Are  there  not  also  children  in  other  con- 
gregations —  innocent  and  good  children  according 
to  thy  doctrine?  Therefore  thy  correction  does  not 
help  thee,  because  thou  proclaimest  a  distinct  sanc- 
tity from  that  existing  in  all  the  other  Christian  sects, 


214  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

and  this  is  common  to  all.  Let  us  suppose  that 
through  the  greater  frequency  of  the  sacraments,  the 
proportion  is  trebled  in  women.  Does  that  enable 
thee  to  modify  to  any  appreciable  extent  thy  scan- 
dalous and  appalling  figures?  Would  the  addition  of 
another  million  five  hundred  thousand  individuals  to 
the  figure  given  destroy  the  frightful  disproportion 
that  should  make  thee  blush  if  thou  hadst  any  sense 
of  shame  in  thee?  But  let  us  generalize  further.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Romanist  not  only  those  who  habitu- 
ally live  in  mortal  sin,  are  separated  from  Christ, 
but  the  Greeks  and  Protestants,  the  unfaithful  and 
idolaters,  all  those  who  do  not  belong  to  his  con- 
gregation and  Church  are  on  the  road  to  damnation. 
It  is  true  that  some  theologians  now  and  then  ven- 
ture timidly  to  proclaim  that  good  faith  may  save 
them;  but  those  who  make  the  assertion  surround 
their  statement  with  so  many  conditions,  and  are  so 
reticent,  that  it  may  well  be  affirmed  that  according 
to  Romanism  only  from  among  themselves  must 
come  the  chosen  of  heaven.26  Can  a  greater  mock- 
ery of  Christ's  redemption  be  conceived?  So  that  out 
of  the  one  thousand  four  hundred  million  souls,  ap- 
proximately, that  live  in  the  world,  about  three  to 
four  millions  only  would  be  saved !  Is  not  that  equal 
to  proclaiming  that  the  coming  of  Christ  has  been  in- 
jurious to  mankind?  Could  it  not  be  asserted  that 
in  the  ancient  Synagogue  the  number  of  the  elected 
was  greater  than  in  the  great  Christian  family?  Is 
not  this  a  diminishing  of  Christ  and  a  ridicule  of 
His  holy  work?    To  proclaim  that  Christ  is  God  and 

26  Bertie  r,  Perrone,  Vives :    De  Vera  Religione. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  215 

the  Son  of  God,  that  He  descended  from  heaven  and 
took  human  nature  to  save  mankind,  and  to  make 
out  later  that  only  your  hypocrites  and  a  few  saints 
are  saved  and  that  the  thousands  of  millions  of  the 
earth's  inhabitants  must  go  down  to  hell,  is  not  that 
placing  Christ's  work  at  the  feet  of  Belial,  and  pro- 
claiming that  the  creation  of  the  world  is  the  great- 
est mistake,  the  most  awful  crime?  Even  if  Ro- 
manism did  not  have  fifty  thousand  weak  points, 
would  not  this  affirmation  be  more  than  enough  to 
condemn  it  as  absurd  and  ridiculous?  The  Roman 
may  argue  that  if  only  in  friars  and  monks,  clergy- 
men, bishops  and  cardinals  there  exists  a  number 
incomparably  greater,  how  can  the  proportion  be  so 
low?  Dost  not  thou  grant  sanctity  even  to  these?  he 
may  say.  When  we  speak  of  ecclesiastical  celibacy, 
we  will  adduce  sufficient  data  to  qualify  the  sanc- 
tity of  these  venerable  heads,  and  the  famous  Roman 
sanctity  will  appear  stained  in  blacker  colors.  And 
if  to  theological  guilt  we  wished  to  add  social  wick- 
edness, what  nations  present  criminal  statistics  more 
appalling  than  the  Latin  countries,  ordinarily  Ro- 
man Catholic  ?  In  what 2T  countries  does  public  mo- 
rality occupy  a  higher* level  than  among  the  Saxon 
peoples,  ordinarily  Protestant?  Whence  come  the 
majority  of  assassins  of  presidents  and  kings  if  not 
from  holy  Romanism?  What  society  appears,  ac- 
cording to  statistics,  involved  in  revolution  and  in- 
capable  of   self-government,   of   an   honest   existence 

27  Consult  the  work  recently  published  by  the  learned  Ital- 
ian anthropologist  and  sociologist,  Julio  Ferri,  entitled :  De- 
cadence of  the  Latin  peoples  and  its  causes. 


2l6  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

or  of  showing  the  mutual  regard  due  to  others,  if 
not  Romanism?  In  what  countries  is  opposition  to 
the  principle  of  authority  proverbial,  the  same  as 
venality  in  the  administration  of  justice,  and  corrup- 
tion among  high  officials,  if  not  within  Romanism? 
In  what  nations  can  it  be  almost  declared  that  pub- 
lic justice  is  a  lie,  the  law  a  myth  and  wealth  and 
nobility  synonymous  with  impunity  and  looseness,  if 
not  in  the  holy  society  of  Romanism?  We  should 
obtain  the  same  result  if  from  theological  death, 
symbolized  by  sin,  and  from  social  wickedness,  rep- 
resented by  public  insubordination  and  corruption, 
we  wished  to  pass  on  to  physical  and  intellectual  mis- 
ery. What  a  scandal!  What  a  shame!  The  Anglo- 
Saxon  people,  as  we  might  say,  freed  themselves  only 
a  few  centuries  ago  from  the  Roman  Church,  it  is 
scarcely  three  hundred  years  since  they  trod  down 
their  degrading  tutelage;  when  they  realized  this 
great  act,  they  were,  in  the  eyes  of  Romanism,  in- 
ferior to  us.  Let  their  culture  and  ours  be  exam- 
ined 28  now,  their  healthiness  and  mortality,  and  our 
healthiness  and  mortality,  their  intense  progress  in 
all  the  orders  of  civilization  compared  with  our 
frightful  decadence.  There  is  only  one  Latin  nation 
that  can  with  decorum  stand  side  by  side  with  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  and  that  is  France ;  but  alas !  in  that 
nation,  before  the  Vatican  Council,  the  clergy  was 
the  standard-bearer  against  Vaticanism.  It  is  more 
than  one  hundred  years  that  the  governments  of  that 
nation  have  been  fighting  hard  against  the  Papacy. 
It  may  be  said  that  the  profession  of  Romanism  is  a 

98  The  same  as  the  last  preceding  reference. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  217 

sure  stigma  of  ruin,  decadence  and  death.  When  we 
come  to  the  Inquisition  and  religious  liberty,  we  will 
expound  these  opinions.  Let  us  finish,  therefore,  by 
declaring  that  the  note  of  sanctity  fits  Romanism  as 
the  note  of  civilized  nations  fits  Morocco,  as  the  note 
of  health  would  fit  a  lazaretto,  and  that  the  Protes- 
tant who  should  leave  his  congregation  in  search  of 
Roman  sanctity,  would  be  as  stupid  as  the  American 
who  left  his  country  in  search  of  a  greater  civiliza- 
tion, and  went  to  look  for  it  among  the  Rifr  tribes. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

UNITY   IN   THE  ROMAN    CHURCH. 

THE  unity  within  her  fold  is  the  feature  on  which 
the  Roman  Church  most  insistently  prides  her- 
self, in  order  thereby  to  reproach  the  Protestant  con- 
gregation as  being  false,  at  the  same  time  proclaim- 
ing that  she  is  the  only  true  Church.  There  are  no 
words  that  rise  more  frequently  to  the  lips  of  Ro- 
manists than  the  famous  sentence  of  the  great  Bos- 
suet,  who,  speaking  of  Protestantism,  said:  "You 
change,  therefore  you  are  not  the  truth,  because  a 
truth  is  one  and  immutable."  1 

How  self-complacently  Romanism  looks  upon  its 
pretended  unity,  while  eyeing  askance  what  it  arro- 
gantly terms  the  variations  and  subdivisions  in  the 
Protestant  Church.2  The  Romanist  speaks  here  as 
if  his  victory  were  assured,  entire,  and  complete. 
There  is  no  Roman  theologian  who  does  not  point  to 
this  unity  as  the  touchstone  whereby  to  distinguish 
the  false  from  the  true.3  The  Romanists  are  so  com- 
pletely fascinated  by  the  splendors  of  their  pretended 
unity,  that  they  believe  themselves  to  be  a  kind  of 
angelic    choir,    which    has    always    sung    the    same 

1  Bossuet :    History  of  Protestant  Changes. 

2Jaugey:  Apologetic  Dictionary  of  Faith,  head,  Notes  of 
the  Church.  Cardinal  Gibbons :  Unity  of  the  Church.  Per- 
rone,  Schouppe,  Bertier,  etc.,  etc. :    Same  head. 

3  Hettinger,  Casanova:    Fundamental  Theology:    Unity  of 
the  Church. 
(218) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  2IO, 

praises  to  the  Almighty,  from  Adam  to  the  patriarchs, 
from  the  patriarchs  to  Moses,  from  Moses  to  the 
Synagogue,  from  the  Synagogue  to  Christ,  from 
Christ  to  the  feudal  castles,  and  from  the  feudal  cas- 
tles to  Pius  X.4  The  infatuation  of  victory  blinds 
them  so  that  they  do  not  see  themselves  as  they  ac- 
tually are.  Ignoring  history,  they  do  not  understand 
that  that  which  they  now  call  unity,  was  in  former 
times  a  state  of  chaos  and  diversity ; 5  that  their  doc- 
trine, far  from  having  been  an  unbroken,  harmoni- 
ous symphony,  so  to  speak,  has  been,  is  now,  and 
will  continue  to  be,  a  medley  of  discordant  and  inhar- 
monious notes;  that  their  so  highly  vaunted  preroga- 
tive is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  consummation 
of  a  law  of  sociology  and  evolution  which  has  found 
its  fulfillment  within  Romanism,6  as  it  is  fulfilled  in 
every  social  organism ;  with  the  exception  that  Ro- 
manism, with  its  exaggerations,  has  falsified  and  per- 
verted a  movement,  which  if  rightly  directed  would 
have  been  the  fruitful  source  of  true  progress,  the 
perdurable  basis  for  a  true  Christian  federation. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  question  more  closely. 
If,  given  the  Roman  doctrines,  you  understand  by 
unity  the  absorbing  centralism  of  the  Vatican,  then 
we  will  let  you  enjoy  this  precious  gift;  keep  it  for 
yourself,  for  sooner  or  later  it  will  end  with  you. 
As,  for  the  Romanists,7  God  contains  in  an  eminent 

4  Balmes  :  Protestantism  Compared  with  Catholicism.  Au- 
gusto  Nicolas :    Study  on  Christianism. 

5  History  of  the  Church,  by  Eusebius.  Ideas  of  the  early 
centuries,  by  Rivas. 

8  Edw.   Gibbon :    Decline   and  Fall   of  the  Roman   Empire, 
book  i,  last  chapter. 
7Jaugey:    Head,  Pope  and  Church. 


220  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

degree  all  things  within  himself,  and  as  Christ  is  the 
entire  Redemption,  so  the  Papacy  contains  in  an  emi- 
nent degree  the  Church,  and  is,  in  case  of  necessity, 
the  entire  Church.  Such  a  unity,  far  from  being 
recommendable,  is  pernicious  and  retrogressive.8  As 
in  the  Roman  empire  one  of  the  principal  causes  of 
its  dissolution  and  downfall  was  imperial  centralism; 
as  in  the  great  European  monarchies,  Spain  and 
France,  decadence  was  chiefly  brought  about  by  kings 
like  Louis  XIV,  who  went  so  far  as  to  say,  "I  am  the 
state,"  and  Philip  II,  who  set  aside  laws  so  decen- 
tralizing as  those  of  Aragon;  therefore  centralization 
as  found  in  the  Roman  Church,  is  the  sign  of  an  im- 
pending downfall. 

We,  for  our  part,  prefer  a  union  in  decentraliza- 
tion as  found  in  the  United  States  of  America,  a 
union  which,  while  opposing  undue  disintegration, 
lays  no  hands  on  the  prerogatives  peculiar  to  each  one 
of  the  states;  a  union  as  we  find  it  in  the  apostolic 
college,9  where  the  members  were  free  to  believe  each 
in  his  own  way,  in  that  which  had  not  been  laid  down 
by  Christ,10  although  they  all  believed  in  the  same 
Christ  and  in  the  same  Gospel;  a  union  like  that 
which  was  observed  in  the  primitive  apostolic 
churches :  though  they  all  formed  one  Church,  as  re- 
gards the  body  of  the  doctrine,  they  had,  neverthe- 
less, each  a  certain  sovereignty,  and  were  in  a  sense 
like  a  federation.11 

8  History  of  Spain  under  Philip  II,  by  La  Fuente. 

9  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  especially  chapter  xv. 

10  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  especially  that  to  the  Galatians. 

11  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius  Martyr.  Fleury :  History  of  the 
Church  in  the  Early  Centuries. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  221 

And  now  see  how  the  first  equivocation  of  Roman- 
ism appears.  Contemplating  itself  in  this  our  twen- 
tieth century,  seeing  itself  in  possession  of  a  body  of 
doctrines  firmly  welded  together,  a  well  defined  hier- 
archy, a  multitude  of  conclusions  and  the  fruit  of 
time  and  experience ;  forgetting  the  turbulent  days  of 
its  infancy,  the  changes  through  which  it  passed  in 
its  childhood,  the  extravagances  of  its  youth,  and 
utterly  regardless  of  the  laws  of  history,  it  derides 
reformationism  because  it  sees  therein  precisely  the 
same  phenomena  which  accompanied  a  historical  evo- 
lution. 

Protestantism  may  ask,  in  order  to  dampen  the  ju- 
bilation with  which  Romanism  is  filled  over  its  vaunt- 
ed unity:  Did  you  possess  the  body  of  formulated 
doctrines  as  you  have  it  now,  in  the  first  centuries  of 
your  existence  ? 12  Was  your  unity  established  and 
confirmed  in  those  centuries  in  which  saints  like  St. 
Irenaeus  believed,  and  died  believing,  in  the  millen- 
nium? Was  your  unity  of  doctrine  clearly  defined 
in  those  centuries  when  your  masters  and  wise  men 
were  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen  and  Tertullian,13 
whom  you  subsequently  condemned?  Was  your  de- 
lightful unity  defined  and  established  in  that  epoch 
when  saints  were  warring  with  saints,  and  when  St. 
Jerome  said  that  the  Catholic  world  was  astonished 
to  see  itself  Arian?  Did  your  unity  appear  as  com- 
plete as  now  in  those  days  when  Polycarp  and  Cyp- 

12  History  of  the  Church,  by  Eusebius. 

13  Read  the  historians  Hergenrother,  Baronio,  Rohrbacher, 
etc.,  etc.,  on  Origen  and  Tertullian. 


222  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

rian  resisted  their  Popes,  the  first  courteously  and  the 
other  rudely,  but  both  with  freedom  and  energy  ? 14 

If,  then,  you  required  centuries  and  centuries,  in 
order  to  arrive  where  you  stand  now,  why  do  you 
forget  your  own  history,  demanding  that  Protestant- 
ism shall  be  undivided  when  in  the  first  centuries  you 
were  rent  by  as  many  doubts  and  divisions  as  we 
show  now?  When  Protestantism  shall  have  lived 
as  many  centuries  as  you  have,  it  is  very  possible  that 
we  shall  have  the  true  Christian  unity,  without  hav- 
ing arrived  at  your  Caesaristic  centralism.  From  this 
evidence  cannot  Protestantism  with  equal  grace  and 
force  ask  Romanism  the  famous  Bossuetian  question, 
"Have  you  not  changed?  therefore  you  are  not  the 
truth,  because  the  truth  is  one  and  immutable." 

Protestantism  is  all  the  more  justified  in  so  speak- 
ing, if  we  remember  that  in  history  the  great  unified 
bodies  appear  subsequent  to  the  partial  disinte- 
grations.15 The  great  monarchies,  centers  of  national 
unity,  were  founded  upon  feudalism,  the  basis  of  na- 
tional disintegration.  The  beginning  of  unity  fol- 
lowed as  a  necessary  social  reaction  upon  the  exag- 
gerated defects  of  division.  We  are  firmly  convinced 
that  sooner  or  later  all  the  Christian  congregations 
will  become  united  in  the  evolution  of  Protestantism. 
The  important  point  here  is  that  when  this  concen- 
trative  movement  begins,  Protestantism  should  be 
careful   not   to   imitate   the    absorbing   centralization 

14  Read  the  historians  mentioned,  on  the  dispute  on  the  cele- 
bration of  Easter  etc.,  between  St.  Polycarp  and  the  Roman 
Pope,  and  disputes  between  St.  Cyprian  and  Pope  St.  Stephen. 

15  Consult  any  well-known  European  historian  on  the  forma- 
tion of  Monarchies. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  223 

of  the  Roman  Church,  but  should  seek  its  inspiration 
in  the  grand  example  of  the  American  social  order. 
And  here  is  one  of  the  reasons  that  upset  the  entire 
prestige  of  the  great  Roman  unity.  It  is  worth  the 
trouble  that  we  examine  it  closely,  for  it  is  one  of  the 
points  on  which  Romanism  pretends  to  found  its  le- 
gitimacy, and  to  justify  its  condemnation  of  Reform- 
ism. And  in  order  to  make  our  point  clearer  we 
shall  examine  the  insidious  conduct  of  Romanism. 

Romanism,  when  addressing  those  that  it  calls 
sects,  refers  to  its  unity  as  a  thing  not  only  complete 
and  consummated,  but  also  indispensable  for  sal- 
vation. Such  is  the  language  it  uses  with  outsiders; 
but,  as  we  shall  see,  its  speech  is  entirely  different 
when  addressing  those  within  the  fold.  In  order  to 
define  our  thought  more  clearly  in  regard  to  this 
all-important  question,  we  shall  refer  to  two  histori- 
cal examples,  both  recent  and  well-known.  Before 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican,  Gallicanism  had  a  legiti- 
mate existence  of  its  own.16  Who  would  dare  to  con- 
demn such  eminent  men  as  Bossuet,  Fenelon,  Massil- 
lon,  Dupanloup  and  others?  Yet  these  men  did  not 
believe  in  the  Roman  unity  as  it  is  laid  down  by  the 
Council  of  the  Vatican.  If  the  unity  had  been  com- 
plete and  necessary  for  salvation,  such  as  the  Church 
proclaims  it  in  the  twentieth  century,  these  men,  and 
with  them  all  France,  would  have  been  living  with- 
out the  Church,  and  would  have  condemned  them- 
selves.   Who  would  dare  to  say  that  they  did  ?    Hence 

18  Read  the  work  attributed  to  Bossuet,  Chapters  on  Decla- 
ration of  the  French  Church;    also  Fleury:    History  of  the 
Church. 
16 


224  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

this  unity  is  neither  a  complete  thing  nor  is  it  nec- 
essary, as  Romanism  holds  it  to  be.  Take  the  other 
instance.  Pius  X  has  just  condemned  Modernism. 
This  condemnation  extends  to  a  number  of  doctrinal 
conclusions  which  were  believed  by  men  eminent  in 
letters  and  high  dignitaries  of  the  Church.17  It  is 
enough  to  mention  only  one,  Cardinal  Newman,  who 
held  such  divergent  views,  according  to  his  opponents. 
Shall  we  say  that  all  these  writers  and  pious  men 
were  living  without  the  Church?  Far  from  it;  it 
would  be  extreme  and  irrational. 

The  only  thing  we  can  say  in  the  face  of  these 
facts,  is  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  an  edifice 
in  construction  and  not  a  finished  product.  There- 
fore the  Roman  Church,  if  she  were  not  so  proud, 
should  say  at  any  .given  date  of  history :  This  is  my 
unity  at  the  present  moment,  but  who  knows  if  to- 
morrow I  shall  not  be  obliged  to  condemn  many  of 
the  opinions  now  held  by  my  children,  in  which  I 
find  at  this  moment  nothing  reprehensible?  Hence 
unity  is  a  variable  thing,  which  increases  and  dimin- 
ishes in  the  course  of  time.  Perhaps  the  Romanist 
does  not  find  the  word  "diminishes"  logical  but  we 
shall  demonstrate  that  it  is  legitimate. 

The  Romanist  has  a  body  of  doctrine  which  is  com- 
posed of  tenets  that  are  definitely  defined  as  dogmas, 
and  others  which,  although  not  defined,  yet  form 
a  part  of  its  unity,  if  they  are  universally  taught  and 

17  Petitions  of  many  Italian  clergymen  to  Piux  X  relating 
to  Modernism.  Same  petitions  translated  into  English  and 
presented  to  the  same  Pope  by  many  English  Catholic  clergy. 


Capitulating  before  protestantism.        225 

believed  by  all  the  Romanists  collectively.18  If  we 
can  show  that  many  of  these  tenets,  after  having  been 
professed  by  the  entire  Roman  congregation  as  doc- 
trines of  the  Church,  ceased  to  be  believed,  it  could 
be  said  with  the  strictest  logic  that  the  object  of  the 
unity  was  diminished.  Many  facts  could  be  cited  in 
support  of  this  contention,  but  we  confine  ourselves 
to  three  concrete  instances :  one  Biblical,  one  canoni- 
cal and  the  third  moral. 

In  the  Middle  Ages,19  and  at  the  time  of  Peter  the 
Lombard,  St.  Thomas,  Bonaventure  and  Scotus,  any 
person  who  did  not  believe  that  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  recorded  a  historical  fact,  and  that  when  God 
spoke  of  days,  He  meant  a  period  of  twenty-four 
hours,  would  have  departed  from  the  unity  of  the 
doctrine.  And  the  same  may  be  said  as  regards  the 
Deluge,  the  Tower  of  Babel  and  other  Bible  stories. 
Yet  these  tenets 20  did  not  pertain  to  the  unity  of 
the  Church,  and  now  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  theolo- 
gians interpret  them  differently  from  the  ancients.  Let 
us  now  take  the  second  example. 

Anyone  who  in  the  beginning  of  the  Middle  Ages 
did  not  believe  that  the  Pope  had  absolute  and  direct 
power  over  the  princes/  would  have  departed  from 
the  unity  of  the  doctrine.21     Yet  Bellarmine,  in  the 

18  Bertier,  Cardinal  Vives:  Theology,  head,  Of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church.     Hurter,  Schouppe :    Same  head. 

19  Read  any  of  the  expositions  by  reputed  authors  of  those 
times,  especially  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bonaventure. 

20  Consult  Genesis,  by  the  most  learned  Dominican,  Father 
Arintero,  where  he  expounds  the  numerous  modern  theories 
and  speaks  on  the  ancient  ones. 

21  Consult  on  this  point  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bonaventure. 


226  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

sixteenth  century  22  dared  to  deny  this  direct  power ; 
and  although  his  work  gave  rise  to  factions  and  was 
considered  scandalous  because  it  attacked  beliefs  and 
affirmations  then  current,  yet  his  opinion  gradually 
gained  ground  and  is  now  one  of  the  most  current 
among  the  canonists.23 

And  finally,  the  third  instance:  it  was  held  to  be 
an  axiom  of  morals  that  every  person  who  had  to 
partake  daily  of  the  communion  should  abstain  from 
venial  sins,  it  being  considered  disrespectful  to  the  sac- 
raments that  persons  ordinarily  indulging  in  certain 
venial  sins  should  have  permission  to  continue  their 
practices  during  that  period.  A  glance  at  the  classi- 
cal codes  of  ethics  of  Romanism,24  will  show  that  this 
was  a  doctrine  of  the  universal  Roman  Church.  But 
according  to  the  latest  decrees  of  Pope  Pius  X  on 
frequent  communion,  there  is  now  no  obligation  either 
to  believe  in  or  to  practice  this  doctrine.25  Thousands 
of  other  instances  like  these  might  be  cited  in  the 
course  of  the  evolution  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church.  There  is  no  doubt  that  now  the  principle 
of  unity  is  applied  more  strictly  than  formerly,  for 
the  Roman  of  the  twentieth  century,  who  is  obliged  to 
believe  in  the  Immaculate  Conception,  the  infallibility 

22  Cardinal  Bellarmine :    Of  the  Pope. 

23  Bouix :  Of  the  Pope.  He  expounds  the  ancient  and  mod- 
ern theories  concerning  the  power  of  the  Pope. 

2i  Consult  Benedict  XIV,  St.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio,  Bil- 
luart,  Elbel,  Esporer,  etc.,  etc. :    On  Frequent  Communion. 

25  Documents  emanating  from  the  Sacred  Congregation  and 
approved  by  Piux  X :  On  Frequent  Communion ;  The  Com- 
munion of  Children  and  of  the  Sick. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  2.2^ 

of  the  Pope,  and  other  dogmas  that  were  disputable 
and  attacked  in  the  nineteenth  century.26 

It  has  therefore  been  sufficiently  demonstrated  that 
the  unity  proclaimed  by  Romanism  is  not  a  perma- 
nent and  complete  entity,  but  an  entity  in  the  proc- 
ess of  construction,  which  is  increased  or  diminished. 
And  we  have  thereby  demolished  its  chief  affirmation, 
that  it  is  now  what  it  always  has  been,  and  that  it 
will  be  to-morrow  what  it  was  yesterday,  and  is  now. 
And  its  grandeur  based  on  this  identity  of  perma- 
nence will  vanish  like  a  mist.  For  this  vaunted  unity 
is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  step  in  constructive 
evolution,  analogous  to  that  which  is  seen  in  every 
Christian  congregation ;  with  this  sole  difference,  that 
Romanism  is  already  ancient  and  stands  with  the  fruits 
of  an  experience  of  two  thousand  years  behind  it, 
which  has,  however,  not  always  gone  to  the  mark; 
while  Protestantism  still  in  the  enjoyment  of  evan- 
gelic and  apostolic  liberty,  stands  in  the  midst  of  con- 
genial and  vital  expansions  of  a  youth  brimful  with 
life. 

We  might  end  our  chapter  here,  since  according 
to  the  logic,  of  theology,  if  the  unity  is  not  perma- 
nent and  identical  with  itself,  it  cannot  prove  any- 
thing in  favor  of  Romanism,  or  against  Protestant- 
ism. But  we  shall  further  upset,  not  some  reasons, 
since  none  of  these  can  any  longer  be  maintained, 
but  every  argument  brought  forward  by  Romanism. 
We  shall  do  with  Romanism  what  the  eminent  and 

28  Consult  any  Dominican  writer  on  the  first,  and  any 
French  author  on  the  second,  of  the  beginning  of  last  century. 


228  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

learned  Father  Mir  did  with  Jesuitism ; 2"  prove  that 
it  is  Romanism  within,  and  a  turning  about,  outside. 
The  material  here  is  most  abundant,  but  we  shall  con- 
fine ourselves  to  the  chief  point,  and  then  the  reader 
may  see  for  himself  that  the  so-called  unity  is  the  most 
exceeding  of  falsehoods,  and  the  most  crafty  of  hy- 
pocrisies. Let  us  glance  briefly  at  the  Roman  phil- 
osophy, its  dogmatic  theology  and  code  of  ethics,  its 
canonical  law,  and  its  sacred  books,  and  it  will  ap- 
pear as  clear  as  daylight  that  its  specious  unity  shines 
by  its  absence.    Let  us  begin  with  the  first.28 

Philosophy  is  a  body  of  affirmations  on  the  universe, 
man  and  God.  Let  us  see  what  Romanism  believes 
on  these  three  points  and  what  the  nature  of  its  be- 
lief is.  Can  the  universe  be  eternal?  Yes,  say  the 
Thomists.29  No,  reply  the  Scotists,  scandalized.30 
Don't  you  see,  say  the  Thomists,  that  God  is  eternal 
and  God  could  create  from  the  time  that  he  was,  that 
is  to  say,  from  eternity?  Don't  you  see,  argue  the 
Scotists,  that  with  such  affirmations  you  yield  ground 
to  materialism,  and  cut  the  support  from  under  the 
demonstration  of  a  personal  God?  The  Church  hears 
these  polemics,  and  is  silent.    First  break  in  the  unity ! 

What    are    the    constitutive    elements    of    bodies? 

27  The  work  of  this  learned  Jesuit  is  entitled,  Jesuitismo 
por  Dentro  6  un  Barrido  hacia  Fuera  (Jesuitism  at  Home,  or 
A  Cleaning  Out). 

28  For  the  benefit  of  readers,  it  may  be  said  that  the  follow- 
ers of  the  School  of  St.  Thomas,  are  called  "Thomists,"  and 
those  of  the  School  of  Franciscans  and  others  are  known  as 
"Scotists." 

29  Cardinals  Zigliara  and  Gonzalez  :  Cosmology :  Metaphys- 
ical Studies  on  St.  Thomas  by  the  latter. 

30  Duppascheir  and  Frassen  ;    Cosmology. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  229 

Scholasticism  replies : 31  matter  first,  and  then  sub- 
stantial form.  Tongiorgi,32  Palmieri,  and  with  them 
countless  number  of  Romanist  philosophers  reply : 
atoms  of  distinct  shapes  and  dimensions.  Don't  you 
see,  says  scholasticism,  that  with  this  view  you  resus- 
citate the  doctrines  of  Epicurus  and  Democritus,  and 
yield  ground  to  degrading  materialism?  Don't  you 
see,  reply  the  others,  that  without  this  theory  the 
Catholic  doctrine  cannot  be  harmonized  with  the  ap- 
proved conclusions  of  modern  chemistry?  The 
Church  hears  them  and  is  silent,  and  we  have  the 
second  break  in  the  unity. 

We  come  upon  the  same  controversies,  as  regards 
the  principle  of  individualization,33  the  concept  of 
extension,  and  so  forth,34  all  questions  in  which  both 
parties  hurl  at  each  other  the  gentle  epithet  of  here- 
tic.35 But  let  us  pass  on  to  the  next  point.  What  is 
the  single  form  of  man?  The  rational  soul,  says 
Thomism.36  Scotism  replies,  the  corporeal  form  first, 
and  then  the  rational  soul.37  Don't  you  see,  argues 
Thomism,  that  this  theory  upsets  the  unity  of  man? 
Don't  you  see,  replies  Scotism,  that  your  view  con- 
tradicts the  discoveries  of  the  science  of  biology?   The 

31  Constitution  of  the  Bodies :  Cosmology,  by  Cardinals 
Zigliara  and  Gonzalez. 

32  Constitution  of  the  Bodies :  Cosmology  by  Tongiorgi  and 
Palmieri. 

33  The  Thomist  school  against  the  Scotist  on  these  questions. 

34  The  Cartesian  school  denies  extension. 

35  Cardinal  Gonzalez  and  others  affirm  the  facts  about  Car- 
tesianism,  which  denies  extension  as  an  essential  property  of 
bodies. 

86  Cardinals  Zigliara  and  Gonzalez :    Man's  Form. 

87  Frassen  and  Duppascheir  :    Bodily  Form. 


23O  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Church  hears  them  and  is  silent,  and  the  confusion 
increases. 

What  constitutes  the  independent  personality  of 
man?  All  the  schools  reply,  that  which  is  presup- 
posed, or  the  hypostasis.  But  is  this  hypostasis  some- 
thing positive,  or  is  it  purely  negative?  It  is  some- 
thing positive,38  cry  the  Thomists  at  the  top  of  their 
voices.  That  cannot  be,  the  Scotists  reply  furiously. 
Don't  you  see  that  negation  cannot  produce  anything? 
say  the  Thomists.  But  don't  you  see,  that  if 
the  thing  presupposed  is  something  positive,  reply 
the  Scotists,  Christ  was  not  a  complete  man,  like  the 
rest  of  mankind,  because  He  lacked  one  perfection, 
every  time  that  the  presupposition  of  human  was  not 
given  to  him  ?  Here  again  they  hand  out  to  each  other 
the  Christian  epithet  of  heretic,  and  the  Church  hears 
them,  and  is  silent,  and  the  confusion  continues  to 
increase.39 

We  might  add  the  intricate  questions  of  the  soul 
and  its  attributes,40  which  some  differentiate,  while 
others  regard  it  as  one  and  the  same  thing,  and  they 
caress  each  other's  ears  with  such  affectionate  words 
as:  You  are  pantheists,  and,  You  are  rationalists. 
Let  us  end  the  philosophical  part  of  the  discussion 
with  the  following  question:  What  is  the  metaphysi- 
cal constitutive  element  of  God?     The  Thomists  say, 

38  Frassen  and  Duppascheir  :    About  Hypostasis. 

S9The  Scotists  are  wont  to  affirm  the  Thomists'  theory- 
heretical,  because  the  latter  deny  something  to  Christ 

40Consult  both  the  Dominican  and  the  Scotist  authors,  be- 
cause the  first  assume  a  real  distinction,  and  the  second  only 
a  formal  one.  Here  Cardinal  Gonzalez  qualifies  the  Scotist 
doctrine  as  Pantheistic. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  23 1 

perfect  intelligence.  That  is  not  so,  reply  the  Scot- 
ists,  it  is  the  quality  of  existing  of  Himself.  Can 
God  be  demonstrated  by  reason,  without  recourse  to 
faith?  Yes,  says  Thomism.41  No,  replies  Scotism.42 
And  in  the  midst  of  this  idle  talk  they  bandy  about 
the  epithets  atheist,  rationalist,  to  the  point  of  ex- 
haustion. We  might  add  a  whole  string  of  other 
plihosophical  theses,  in  the  discussion  of  which  the  in- 
ternal dissensions  of  Romanism  are  entirely  mani- 
fest ;  but  the  examples  cited  above  are  more  than  suf- 
ficient to  show,  that  if  philosophy  consists  in  defining 
the  three  terms,  Universe,  Man  and  God,  and  there 
be  such  discrepancies  in  the  answers  of  the  Roman- 
ists, then  they  do  not  possess  a  unified  philosophy. 
The  Church  hears  and  is  silent.  The  break  in  unity 
is  complete.  Let  us  pass  now  to  dogmatic  theology. 
How  many  entities  are  there  in  the  mystery  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  ?  Four,  say  Suarez  43  and  some  other 
theologians ;  three,  say  Thomism 44  and  Scotism. 
Don't  you  see,  say  the  first,  that  if  you  do  not  sup- 
pose that  the  Divine  Essence  has  an  existence  apart, 
you  cannot  distinguish  the  reality  of  the  persons? 
Don't  you  see,  reply  the  second,  that  to  admit  four 
entities  is  almost  equal  to  saying  that  there  are  four 
persons,  which  is  heretical?  So  between  flinging  the 
edifying  epithets  of  irrational,  and  heretic,  the  mys- 

41  See    the    Dominican    authors    already    mentioned,    under 
Theodicy. 
*-  Consult  Scotus  :    Quolibetical  Questions. 

43  See  Suarez. 

44  Consult  any  Thomist  author  of  repute,  and  compare  with 
any  Scotist  writer. 


2$2  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

tery  of  the  Trinity  is  up  in  the  air,  and  the  Roman 
unity  lies  prone  on  the  ground. 

What  distinction  is  there  between  the  contrasting 
attributes  and  the  persons,  and  what  between  the 
latter  and  the  Essence?  Only  a  virtual  one,  says 
Thomism.45  No,  sir,  it  is  real,  exclaims  Scotism.46 
Don't  you  see,  the  Thomists  protest  frantically,47  that 
to  admit  real  distinctions  is  to  suppose  that  God  is  a 
composite  being,  but  composition  excludes  simplicity, 
and  a  God  who  is  not  simple  would  not  be  a  God  at 
all?  Don't  you  see,  the  Scotists  reply  furiously,  that 
not  to  admit  these  distinctions  is  to  suppose  that  the 
mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  a  compound  of  contra- 
dictions, and  irrationalities?  And  between  the  dis- 
cussions of  one,  and  the  apostrophes  of  the  other,  and 
the  silence  of  the  Church,  the  unity  disappears  in 
mysteries  as  deep  as  that  of  the  Trinity. 

Is  there  such  a  thing  as  predestination?  There  is, 
they  all  answer  unanimously,  and  it  is  eternal.48  How 
does  God  verify  from  eternity  the  predestination  of 
his  chosen  ones?  in  looking  to  their  merits,  or  irre- 
spective of  them?  In  looking  to  their  merits,  says 
Jesuitism.49  Irrespective  of  them 50  says  Thomism, 
together  with  nearly  all  the  other  Romanist  theolo- 
gians.    Don't  you  see,  say  the  first,  that  you  thereby 

45  See  Billuart,  under  Thomist  Theology:  Divine  Attri- 
butes. 

48  Frassen,  and  Sgambatti :  Dogmatic  Theology ;  Divine 
Attributes. 

47  Compare  Billuart  with  Frassen  and  Sgambatti,  on  the 
same  theological  question. 

48  Any  Roman  theologist,  for  this  truth  is  a  dogma  of  faith. 

49  Consult  the  famous  Jesuit,  Father  Molina :  On  The 
Science  of  God;    and  Tournely,  on  the  same  title. 

50  Billuart  and  Cardinal  Noris :    On  Predestination. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  233 

turn  predestination  into  an  arbitrary,  irrational,  and 
even  unjust  act?51  Don't  you  see,  reply  the  others, 
that  to  suppose  that  predestination  is  dependent  on 
the  merits  of  the  chosen  is  to  suppose  that  the  infinite 
is  to  depend  on  the  finite^  and  that  the  creatures  are 
the  impelling  cause  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  which 
would  be  equivalent  to  denying  God  ?  52  And  here  the 
reader  may  listen  to  a  string  of  edifying  civilities. 
You  are  Pelagians,  says  Thomism  to  Jesuitism.53  You 
are  Calvinists,  the  latter  replies.  The  Jesuits  in  their 
audacity  go  so  far  as  to  condemn  even  St.  Augustine 
and  St.  Thomas;  in  serious  books  approved  by  their 
authorities,  and  hierarchies,  they  make  such  bold 
statements  as  this:  If  I  should  follow  St.  Augustine 
I  should  be  more  of  a  Calvinist  than  Calvin.54  We 
beg  the  reader  to  read  some  of  the  books  we  have  in- 
dicated in  the  footnotes,  and  he  will  see  with  what 
a  Christian  charity  they  call  each  other  heretics.  But 
let  us  go  on. 

How  is  predestination  effected?  By  means  of  suf- 
ficing grace,  which  man  makes  efficacious  by  his  co- 

51  Consult  Molina  and  Tournely :    On  Predestination. 

B2Billuart  and  Cardinal  Noris :    Same  subject. 

"Billuart:    On  Answer  to  the  Objections  of  the  Jesuits. 

54  We  recommend  a  small  book  entitled  Historio  de  las 
Ideas  Regalistas  (History  of  Regalist  Ideas  in  Spain),  by 
the  learned  Augustine,  Father  Miguelez.  In  this  book  will 
be  found  many  testimonials  of  the  readiness  with  which  the 
Jesuits  condemned  as  heretical  the  Augustines  and  Domini- 
cans. There  it  will  be  seen  that  they  entered  Cardinal  Noris 
in  the  Index,  flatly  ignoring  the  positive  and  oft-repeated 
formal  orders  from  Benedict  XIV.  This  is  the  kind  of  obe- 
dience frequently  practiced  by  Jesuitism  when  it  is  not  to  its 
advantage  to  obey. 


234  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

operation,  says  Jesuitism.55  False,  and  false  again, 
replies  Thomism;  predestination  is  effected  by  means 
of  grace  physically  predeterminate  and  practically  ir- 
resistible.56 That  view  is  immoral,  argues  Jesuit- 
ism, it  is  fatalistic,  it  is  to  proclaim  the  Koran  and 
Mohammed.57  And  your  view,  replies  Thomism,  is 
anti-Biblical,  anti-rational  and  atheistic,  because  it 
denies  the  wisdom  of  God,  which  is  perfect  in  itself; 
because  it  supposes  that  the  immutability  of  the  Di- 
vine decrees  is  relaxed  in  favor  of  human  contin- 
gencies and  human  variableness.58  How  does  God 
know  future  acts  performed  by  free  will?  Because 
He  sees  them  in  themselves,  as  if  they  were  actually 
present,  says  Jesuitism.59  Untrue  and  error,  replies 
Thomism.60  God  sees  them  in  his  own  Essence,  be- 
cause He  determines  that  they  shall  be,  and  in  virtue 
of  this  determination  they  are,  and  He  so  knows 
them.  This  is  to  deny  human  liberty,  Jesuitism  cries 
furiously.61  And  your  view  denies  the  Divine  Wis- 
dom, Thomism  answers  angrily.62  And  in  the  midst 
of  this  infernal  quarreling,  which  has  now  lasted  more 
than  three  centuries,  this  rubbish  of  affirmation  and 
negation,  history  demonstrates  with  the  clarity  of 
daylight,  that  on  the  most  fundamental  dogmas  of 
revelation  the  supercilious  Romanist  possesses  neither 

55  See   Molina  and  Tournely.      See  documents  referring  to 
the  Congregation  of  "Auxiliis." 

56  Billuart :    On  Predestination. 

57  Read  Father  Miguelez'  short  work. 

68  Billuart:   Answer  to  the  Objections,  etc. 

69  Molina  and  Tournely :    On  the  Science  of  God. 
60  Billuart :    Same  head. 

81  Tournely:    Answer  to  the  Objections. 
62  Billuart:    Answer  to  the  Objections. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  235 

a  well-defined  doctrine,  nor  a  complete  unity.  We 
should  come  upon  the  same  strictures  should  we  ex- 
amine the  substance  and  form  of  confession,63  the 
sacrament  of  marriage,  and  so  forth.  But  the  above 
references  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there  is  no  unity, 
as  regards  the  principal  tenets  of  the  Roman  theology. 
Is  there  unity  in  the  Roman  code  of  ethics?  What 
a  jumble  of  conflicting  answers  this  topic  calls  forth. 
There  is  hardly  a  question  in  connection  with  it, 
which  does  not  give  rise  to  a  multitude  of  opinions. 
Take  up  almost  any  Catholic  book  on  ethics,  and  open 
it  at  any  chapter  you  please,  and  you  will  always 
find  this  same  refrain :  This  is  the  doctrine  of  St. 
Alphonsus,64  but  St.  Bonaventure,  or  St.  Thomas,  up- 
holds the  opposite  view ;  Billuart  thinks  thus,  but  El- 
bel  is  of  another  mind ;  this  is  condemned  by  some  as 
a  grievous  sin,  but  others  deny  it  to  be  so.05  The  con- 
fusion of  Babel  is  as  nothing  compared  with  the  con- 

03  Discussions  between  Thomists  and  Scotists  on  this  point. 
On  dogmas  so  well  established  as  eternal  punishment  in  hell, 
there  is  no  unity.  Many  notable  writers  maintain  that  the 
punishment  of  the  senses  is  not  eternal.  The  reader  can  as- 
certain this  for  himself  by  reading  the  study  of  the  best  re- 
puted Romanist  orator  of  that  time,  Father  Monsabre,  on 
this  subject:  "Father  Monsabre's  conferences":  Hell  and 
the  Eternity  of  Its  Punishments. 

64  Read,  for  instance,  Concina  on  Moral  Theology,  Cardinal 
Vives:  Head,  Systems,  where  it  will  be  seen  that  the  trifling 
number  of  seven  is  required,  namely:  Absolute  Tutiorism, 
Moderate  Tutiorism,  Probabiliorism,  Equiprobabilism,  Simple 
Probabilism,  Moderate  Probabilism,  Laxism. 

65  For  instance,  whether  or  not  a  minor  under  seven  years 
is  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  Church.  Some  affirm  that  he  is 
under  penalty  of  a  grave  sin  if  he  has  sufficient  knowledge, 
and  others  deny  it,  even  if  he  has  such  a  knowledge.  Those 
over  sixty  years  are  in  the  same  case  as  regards  fasting  and 
abstinence,  with  the  same  diversity  of  opinions. 


236  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

fusion  rioting  within  the  Roman  code  of  ethics.66 
And  it  has  given  currency  to  the  following  highly 
significant  proverb:  "If  you  lose  your  purse  pray  to 
God  that  it  may  not  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  moralist, 
for  if  this  should  happen  he  would  find  grounds  for 
keeping  it  and  soothing  his  conscience."  As  this  di- 
versity of  opinions  on  moral  questions  is  evident  both 
to  Romanists  and  Protestants,  we  shall  pass  on  to 
the  canonical  law.  He  who  does  not  believe  us  may 
read  some  of  the  authors  we  have  quoted,  and  he 
will  see  for  himself  that  there  cannot  possibly  be  a 
greater  division  and  confusion  of  opinion  than  that 
found  in  the  Roman  code  of  morals. 

The  lamentable  thing  about  all  this  is,  not  that  there 
are  diversities  of  opinion,  but  that  this  should  happen 
in  the  science  which  for  Romanism  is  the  one  that 
points  the  way  to  heaven  and  to  hell ; 67  and  the  poor, 
faithful  one  is  often  and  often  perplexed  and  fright- 
ened, because  at  every  step  they  say  to  him :  Don't 
go  there,  because  that  way  leads  to  hell.  Never  mind 
what  he  says,  advises  another  teacher;  that  way  leads 
surely  to  heaven;  and  where  the  believer  least  ex- 
pects it,  a  third  moralist  comes  up  to  him  and  says, 

66  In  matters  so  grave  as  restitution,  there  are  cases  in 
which  some  compel  under  penalty  of  a  grave  sin,  what  others 
approve  as  licit,  for  example :  Thou  hast  positive  doubts 
as  to  whether  thou  didst  give  or  not  the  compensation  due? 
Then  according  to  St.  Alfonso  thou  art  no  longer  compelled 
to  make  restitution,  but  according  to  other  authorities  like 
Concina,  Billuart,  etc.,  thou  art  compelled  under  penalty  of 
mortal  sin. 

67  Besides  the  above  named,  let  us  read  the  following  au- 
thors:  Gury,  Lenkhul,  Alcina,  Genicot,  Salmaticenses,  Elbel, 
etc.,  etc.  Look  up  any  section,  and  in  all  of  them  the  reader 
will  find  an  infinity  of  opinions,  many  of  them  condemning 
as  grave  sin  what  others  declare  to  be  lawful  or  right. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  237 

The  other  two  are  deceiving  you,68  for  this  road  leads 
neither  to  heaven  nor  to  hell,  but  to  purgatory.69  You 
may  imagine  the  state  of  mind  of  the  simple  believer, 
in  the  midst  of  this  jumble  of  advice,  leaving  him 
not  knowing  where  to  turn.  If  we  had  in  mind  to 
write  a  humorous  book  or  to  create  a  scandal,  what  a 
wealth  of  material  we  should  find  in  Roman  ethics ! 
But  let  us  pass  on  to  the  canonical  law. 

Is  there  unity  in  the  canonical  law?  As  little  as 
elsewhere.  Ask  if  the  bishops  receive  their  power 
directly  from  Christ  or  from  the  Pope,  and  some  will 
tell  you  one  thing  and  others  the  opposite.70  Ask 
what  kind  of  power  the  Pope  has  over  the  princes, 
and  some  will  say  that  it  is  absolute  and  direct,  and 
others  that  it  is  restricted  and  mediate;  while  there 
are  still  others  who  will  say,  that  it  is  neither  of  the 
two.  Ask  if  the  Pope  has  any  obligations  toward 
the  Concordats,  in  the  manner  of  a  bilateral  contract, 
and  you  will  meet  some  who  say  that  the  Pope  is  un- 
der no  obligation,  while  others  consider  him  as  being 
semi-obligated  and  others  who  say  that  he  is  as  much 
obligated   as   the   temporal    princes,71    and   so   forth. 

68  Cardinal  Vives :    Compendium  on  Morals,  "Introduction." 

69  In  cases  so  grave  as  to  whether  absolution  must  be  given 
or  not.  For  example :  In  the  case  of  a  sin  of  a  certain 
nature  (if  the  penitent  ignores  the  privacy  of  same)  he  may 
be  absolved  by  any  clergyman,  according  to  some,  and  accord- 
ing to  others,  he  cannot  be  so  absolved  unless  the  priest  is 
authorized  to  make  the  reservation,  the  bishops  and  Pope 
being  the  sole  authorities.  Read  St.  Alfonso  and  Cardinal 
Vives  on  "Reservation." 

70Bouix:   Of  the  Bishop. 

71  Bouix :  Canonical  Law:  Of  the  Pope,  under  Concordats. 
Also  Cardinal  Tarquinius,  Caballari  and  Craisson,  same  head. 


238  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Hence  we  find  as  little  of  the  famous  doctrinal  unity 
in  the  canonical  law  as  elsewhere. 

Is  there  unity  in  the  way  of  interpreting  the  Sa- 
cred Books?  Here,  as  in  ethics,  there  is  an  astound- 
ing diversity  of  opinions,  which  contradicts  the  pre- 
tended unity  of  which  the  Roman  Church  is  so  proud. 
Of  what  does  inspiration  consist?  Some  say  that  it 
is  something  positive  which  moves  the  writer.72  Oth- 
ers, say,  no,  that  is  not  so,  it  is  solely  something  pre- 
servative, simply  the  approbation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  writer  being  as  free  in  redacting  his  books  as  any 
profane  writer.  What  does  inspiration  cover?  It  cov- 
ers each  and  every  one  of  the  things  73  contained  in 
the  Scriptures,  say  some.  It  covers  solely  the  pas- 
sages referring  to  dogma  or  to  ethics,  say  others. 
That  is  not  so,  protests  a  third  group  of  interpreters, 
it  covers  each  and  every  one  of  the  sentences.  No, 
sir,  add  yet  others,  it  covers  each  and  every  one  of 
the  words,  and  even  the  accents  and  commas,  if 
there  are  any.74  And  after  all  this  jungle  and  confu- 
sion of  opinions,  which  argues  a  condition  far  from 
the  precious  unity  held  out  by  the  Roman  Church, 
all  these  learned  interpreters  say  to  the  bewildered 
reader:  "But  do  not  apply  our  words  to  any  of  the 
versions  which  we  possess.75  When  we  speak  of  in- 
spiration and  what  it  implies,  we  are  referring  ex- 
clusively to  the  primitive  text,  that  which  was  writ- 

72  Read  Jansen :  On  Inspiration.  Vigouroux :  Biblical 
Manual.     Comely:    Lessons  on  Exegesis;    same  head. 

73  Same  authorities  and  heads.  Also  Jaugey :  Apologetic 
Dictionary  of  Faith,  heads,  Inspiration  and  Exegesis. 

74  Same  authors  and  heads.    Also  Patrizi  and  Lazaro. 

75  Same  authors  and  heads.  Also  Leo  XIII :  Encyclical  on 
the  study  of  Holy  Scripture. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  239 

ten  and  dictated  by  the  inspired  men ;  and  as  we  do 
not  possess  any  of  these  precious  texts,  you  may  im- 
agine that  we  have  said  nothing;  you  may  believe 
that  we  are  talking  foolishness,  until  one  of  these 
genuine  primitive  codices  shall  come  to  light."  And 
since  they  know,  and  the  reader  is  not  ignorant  of  the 
fact,  that  it  is  morally  impossible  that  this  should 
happen,  the  result  is,  that  after  all  this  mess  of  opin- 
ions, after  all  this  trouble  taken  in  listening  to  the 
Roman  doctors,  it  all  goes  up  into  smoke,  and  we  are 
finally  left  even  without  the  Sacred  Books.  For  as 
they  are  talking  solely  of  texts,  and  books  which  do 
not  exist,  and  are  not  referring  to  those  which  we 
now  possess,  the  reader  may  exclaim,  in  examining 
the  latter:  Oh,  if  I  only  knew  that  this  text  were 
identical  with  the  primitive  text,  I  should  have  the 
assurance  that  what  it  contains  has  been  revealed  in 
some  way,  that  is,  in  agreement  with  the  multiplicity 
of  opinions  indicated  above.  But  who  will  assure  me 
that  the  translator  is  not  erring?  Who  will  assure 
me  that  the  copyists  are  not  making  mistakes?  The 
Roman  is  therefore  confronted  with  a  cleverly 
wrought  fabric  of  exegetical  doctrines,  but  is,  strictly 
speaking,  without  a  Bible  to  which  to  apply  them. 

Perhaps,  objects  the  Roman,  you  are  exaggerating; 
here  you  have  the  version  called  the  Vulgate,  which 
was  declared  authentic  at  the  Tridentine  Council.70 
Therefore  we  have  a  Bible,  and  therefore  you  are  ex- 
aggerating. But  softly,  Mr.  Roman,  we  shall  soon 
examine  the  authenticity  of  your  Vulgate,  according 
to  your  own  and  most  sane  doctrine,  and  then  you 

76  See  Trent  Council :    Biblical  Canon. 
17 


240  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

will  see  that  our  assertions  are  unassailable,  and  we 
can  prove  to  you  that  with  all  this  noise  and  confu- 
sion, the  Bible  has  slipped  away  from  our  hands,  and 
we  have  been  left  without  the  divine  Word. 

You  say  that  the  Vulgate  was  declared  authentic. 
Very  well.  Let  us  see  what  your  Popes,  your  cardi- 
nals, your  bishops,  your  theologians  and  your  exe- 
getes  say  about  this  alleged  authenticity.  Listen  to 
them.  This  authenticity  refers  solely  to  the  Latin 
versions,  that  is  to  say,  that  this  version  is  the  least 
faulty  among  all  the  Latin  versions.  But  is  it  genuine 
and  truly  exact  ?  77  Why !  No !  Don't  you  see  that 
since  that  Council  it  has  been  revised  and  emended 
by  the  Pontiffs?  What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  this 
pretty  word  "authenticity"?  You  know  very  well, 
that  it  is  the  least  faulty  of  the  Latin  versions,  and 
you  may  also  consult  the  Greek  versions,  especially 
the  Septuagint,  which  is  more  accurate  in  many  pas- 
sages than  our  Vulgate.78  And  we  can  at  least  go  to 
our  Vulgate  with  the  assurance  of  not  finding  any 
error  there.  If  that  were  so,  it  could  not  have  been 
corrected,  and  yet  it  has  been  corrected  and  continues 
to  be  corrected.  But  will  the  ambiguities  at  least  be 
of  slight  importance?  There  are  some.  Hear  what 
the  best  exegetes  think  about  this.  Some  say  there 
is  no  error  in  the  Vulgate  in  all  the  passages  that 
refer  to  dogma  and  to  morals.  Others,  more  cautious, 
assure  us :  there  is  nothing  false  in  our  Vulgate  in 

77  Comely :  Compendium  of  Exegesis :  under  theory  about 
the  Vulgate.  Apologetic  Dictionary  of  the  Faith,  under  Vul- 
gate. See  especially,  Cardinal  Gonzalez'  work:  La  Biblia  y 
la  Ciencia  (The  Bible  and  Science),  on  the  Vulgate. 

78  Same  authors  and  heads. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  24I 

the  passages  referring  to  dogma  and  to  morals,  but 
there  may  be  deficiency  and  inexactitude.  Let  us  ex- 
plain these  terms,  as  they  are  weighty. 

Take  the  case  that  in  the  original  text  there  was  a 
dogma  presenting  two  aspects,  and  that  the  Vulgate 
speaks  of  the  one  and  not  of  the  other.79  Or  that  in 
the  original  text  there  are  indicated  more  motives 
and  reasons,  which  are  not  all  touched  upon  in  the 
Vulgate.  Hence  it  may  be  deficient  and  inexact,  not 
because  it  includes  a  falsehood,  but  because  it  has 
omitted  something.  Then  come  other  exegetes  still 
more  cautious,  who  say,  that  there  are  scientific  er- 
rors in  the  Vulgate,  relating  to  astronomy,  history, 
sociology  and  so  forth,  and  you  may  therefore  deny 
that  it  is  authentic.  And  finally  there  is  the  most  radi- 
cal and  most  implacable  fraction  of  exegetes,  which 
includes  cardinals  as  eminent  in  exegesis  as  Vercel- 
lone,  who  say,  in  the  coolest  way  imaginable,  that 
there  are  scientific,  moral,  and  dogmatic  errors  in  the 
Vulgate.80 

And  so  we  are  enlightened!  This  is  the  limit  of 
mockery  and  sarcasm.  We  laugh  boisterously  at  the 
divisions  within  Protestantism,  while  we  ourselves, 
with  our  distinctions  and  heterogeneity  of  opinion, 
have  arrived  at  the  point  of  practically  denying  that 
the  Bible,  which  is  the  basis  of  all  that  is  spiritual, 
is  genuine.  We  deride  the  Protestants  because  some 
confess  and  others  do  not;  because  some  are  bap- 
tized in  one  way  and  others  in  another ;  because  some 

79  Comely :    Work  and  head  mentioned. 

*  Consult  especially  The  Bible  and  Science  of  Cardinal 
Gonzalez. 


242  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

adore  the  Sacrament  and  others  deny  this  adoration; 
while  we  ourselves,  with  our  divisions,  practically 
deny  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  which  is  the  only 
basis  for  baptism,  confession  and  the  Sacrament.  Is 
this  not  the  height  of  hypocrisy,  of  inconsequence, 
and  of  stupidity? 

Oh,  if  Romanism  were  not  so  haughty,  if  it  were 
at  times  a  little  more  humble,  since  it  cannot  preserve 
unity,  neither  in  philosophy  nor  in  theology,  neither  in 
liturgy  81  nor  in  the  canonical  law,  and  not  even  in 
the  Sacred  Scripture!  Instead  of  loudly  vaunting 
itself  of  that  which  it  does  not  now  possess,  has  not 
possessed,  and  will  never  possess,  it  should  unfold  the 
banner  of  union,  not  on  the  strength  of  its  fictitious 
unity,  which  does  not  exist,  but  on  the  strength  of  that 
which  Protestantism  also  proclaims,  namely,  on  the 
basis  of  the  fundamental  dogmas;  because  it  has  all 
the  more  reasons  for  doing  so  as  Protestantism  is 
proclaiming  this  up  to  a  certain  point.  Ask  it:  what 
things  shall  a  Christian  believe,  in  order  that  he  may 
be  saved  ?  And  it  answers :  In  the  existence  82  of  a 
personal  God  who  rewards  the  good  and  punishes  the 
bad;  in  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  in  the  Di- 
vinity, the  Incarnation  and  the  Redemption  of  Christ. 
Nothing  more,  nothing  less. 

This,  then,  is  the  banner,  the  fundamental  banner 

81  See  Cardinal  Gibbons,  article  on  "Liturgy,"  Encyclopedia 
Britannica.  We  would  rather  not  add  anything  to  lengthen 
the  chapter,  but  read  the  article  mentioned,  and  it  will  be  seen 
that  more  serious  differences  exist  among  Catholics,  than  be- 
tween Romanists  and  many  Protestant  congregations. 

82  St.  Alfonso:  On  what  must  be  known  of  the  means  to 
salvation.  Cardinal  Vives,  Bertier,  etc.,  are  of  the  same  opin- 
ion. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  243 

of  true  unity.  Here  we  have  the  program  of  union, 
the  device  of  the  new  crusaders.  Here  we  have  the 
truths  which  should  serve  us  as  our  watchwords,  to 
fight,  not  among  ourselves,  but  against  advancing  im- 
piety, against  rationalism  which  is  invading  every  field 
of  thought,  against  anti-Christianism  which  is  threat- 
ening to  take  hold  of  us.  History  tells  us  that  the 
Greek  emperors  were  more  interested  in  discussing 
minute  questions  of  theology  than  in  providing  for 
the  defence  of  their  empire,  and  when  they  least 
thought  of  it  the  Turk  came  and  planted  the  standard 
of  the  Crescent  above  the  standard  of  the  Cross.  Far 
be  from  us  that  which  has  become  proverbial,  the 
Byzantine  questions ;  far  be  from  us  domestic  theo  - 
logical  minutiae.  The  Turk  stands  at  the  gates ;  his 
terrible  artillery  is  rumbling  in  the  air ;  his  light  cav- 
alry is  appearing  everywhere ;  the  body  of  his  army 
is  advancing  with  the  trumpets  of  attack.  He  who  en- 
rolls under  the  standard  we  have  indicated  is  of  us ; 
if  he  call  himself  a  Greek,  he  is  of  us ;  if  he  call  him- 
self a  Russian,  he  is  of  us;  if  he  call  himself  a  Prot- 
testant,  he  is  our  brother;  and  if  he  wishes  to  be  a 
Roman,  he  is  also  our  brother. 

Sweet  Jesus,  save  us,  because  we  perish.  Inspire 
us  with  Thy  charity  and  union,  that  we  may  be  one 
single  fold,  all  Thy  sons  with  one  single  pastor,  Thy 
divine  and  sovereign  authority. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

ECCLESIASTICAL   CELIBACY. 

IN  taking  up  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  celibacy, 
we  must  clearly  outline  our  thesis,  so  as  not  to 
carry  confusion  into  the  examination  of  this  most  im- 
portant point.  We  will  say  right  here  that  the  mandate 
of  celibacy  is  not  of  Divine  origin ;  that  the  free 
choice  of  celibacy  is  recommendable  in  many  cases ; 
that  the  obligation  of  celibacy,  as  a  precept,  should  be 
abolished  for  the  good  of  the  Church  itself.  But  we 
shall  not  stop  to  prove  the  two  first  assertions.  They 
are  so  self-evident  that  merely  to  explain  them  will 
carry  conviction  to  the  minds  of  our  readers.  Let 
Cardinal  Gibbons  say  what  he  will x  of  the  example 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles ;  of  the  practice  of  the  men 
of  apostolic  periods;  of  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome 
and  of  thousands  of  others  that  could  be  brought 
forward:  in  this  twentieth  century  we  believe  that 
the  precept  of  celibacy  is  not  divine,  nor  quasi-divine, 
as  many  believed  in  the  Middle  Ages,  but  is  purely 
and  exclusively  of  ecclesiastical  origin.  We  will  add 
to  the  many  witnesses  cited  in  the  notes  2  a  further 

1  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  Celibacy. 

2  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe,  head,  Celibato 
Ecclesiastico.  The  American  review,  The  Catholic  World, 
April  and  May,  1908.  Hettinger,  Casanova,  Cardinal  Vives, 
etc.,  etc. ;   among  the  canonists  consult  Bouix, 

(244) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  245 

reason  that  cannot  be  gainsaid  by  any  Roman  theolo- 
gian, not  even  by  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

What  course  does  the  Church  pursue  now,  with 
reference  to  the  priests  of  the  Greek  Catholic  Church  ? 
As  Cardinal  Gibbons  admits,3  it  authorizes  the  pres- 
byter to  live  with  his  wife,  and  the  children  born  of 
this  union  are  as  legitimate  as  those  of  any  other  mar- 
riage under  the  canonical  law.  Very  well.  If  celi- 
bacy were  a  divine  institution  the  Church  could  not 
authorize  it  without  transgressing  against  her  ortho- 
doxy.4 Does  she  authorize  it?  Then  it  is  evident 
that  such  authorization  is  within  her  province,  and  it 
is  therefore  a  purely  ecclesiastical  precept.  To  deny 
either  of  these  two  affirmations  would  be  heretical  for 
the  Romanist ;  hence  it  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  celibacy 
is  of  human  origin. 

Our  second  assertion  is  equally  self-evident.  And  on 
this  point  we  agree  heart  and  soul  with  the  doctrine 
of  Cardinal  Gibbons.  We  believe  that  the  celibate 
minister  who  can  lead  an  immaculate,  clean  life  can 
do  infinitely  more  and  better  work  than  the  married 
minister.  A  man  who  is  truly  a  celibate,  zealous  and 
wise,  can  do  wonders  in  converting  souls,  and  can 
perform  miracles  in  the  moral  uplift  of  nations.  To 
deny  this  truth  would  be  to  deny  history,  and  to  mis- 
conceive the  most  fundamental  laws  of  human  nature. 
We  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  noteworthy 
Protestant  who  will  deny  this  truth.  A  Protestant 
minister,  working  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  who  is 

3  British  Encyclopedia  Vol.  28,  page  608,  this  article  is  signed 
by  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

*Jaugey:    head,  Potestad  Dispensativa  de  la  Iglesia. 


246  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

unmarried  and  of  a  truly  immaculate  life,  can  do  far 
more,  and  achieve  better  results  than  his  colleague. 
The  father  and  husband  must  of  necessity  devote  a 
great  part  of  his  life,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  to 
his  children  and  his  wife ;  while  the  minister  to  whom 
Heaven  has  granted  the  gift  of  perfect  chastity,  will 
dedicate  his  life  entirely  to  his  flock  and  to  humanity. 
The  extraordinary  sanctity  with  which  some  Roman 
men  seem  to  be  clothed  is  due  chiefly  to  this  angelic 
virtue. 

But  this  is  not  the  question,  Cardinal  Gibbons.  The 
question  is  whether  an  obligation  shall  continue  to 
be  imposed  which  is  not  fulfilled  and  which  is  the 
cause  of  numberless  evils  and  of  terrible  scandals. 
This  really  is  the  sore  and  delicate  spot.  If  we  do 
not  go  into  details  here,  we  do  not  prove  our  state- 
ment ;  and  if  we  do  go  into  details  we  shall  be  obliged 
to  touch  upon  common  street  scandals,  from  which 
we  flee  so  strenuously.  We  shall  touch  upon  the  mat- 
ter lightly,  following  the  ancient  maxim:  "Intelli- 
genti  pane  a,"  and  merely  glancing  at  the  most  com- 
promising points. 

Is  celibacy  observed  at  the  present  time  within  Ro- 
manism? Let  us  see  how  the  ecclesiastical  vocation 
is  determined  in  the  Latin  nations,  which  will  give 
us  a  weighty  argument  to  the  contrary.  More  than 
ninety  per  cent  of  the  future  priests  are  the  sons  of 
parents  in  moderate  circumstances.  We  speak  of 
Europe,  and  chiefly  of  Spain.5  Being  the  sons  of 
pious   mothers,  the   latter  are   ordinarily   the  first  to 

5  Please  investigate  facts  about  seminaries  as  I  have  done 
in  many  of  them  in  Spain. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  247 

decide  upon  their  son's  future  life  and  to  suggest  the 
religious  vocation.0  At  the  age  of  ten  the  boy,  in- 
fluenced by  his  mother,  is  filled  with  the  idea  that 
there  is  no  profession  so  worthy,  so  holy,  so  fruitful 
of  results,  and  so  easy  as  that  of  a  priest.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  Latin  boy  is  much  more  im- 
pressionable than  the  American  boy.7  At  this  age, 
when  violent  passions  are  unknown,  when  the  physical 
development  is  far  from  being  completed,  the  boy 
starts  out  upon  the  ecclesiastical  career.  He  enters 
the  seminary,  and  now  the  period  of  privations  and 
sacrifices  begins  for  his  parents.  During  the  first  year 
the  boy  seems  to  prosper  and  to  get  good  hold  of  his 
profession.  The  retirement,  the  silence,  the  prayers, 
and  so  forth,  and  above  all,  the  latent  condition  of 
his  passions  and  his  complete  ignorance  of  the  world, 
bring  it  about  that  this  choice  of  a  profession,  which 
began  as  a  fixed  idea  on  the  part  of  the  mother,  has 
assumed  the  same  character  in  the  mind  of  the  son, 
who  now  believes  himself  to  be  called  to  the  priest- 
hood. But  the  boy  soon  meets  with  his  first  disillu- 
sionments,  when  he  is  between  fifteen  and  twenty  years 
of  age.8  The  bad  example  of  some  companions,  the 
first  flutterings  of  the  heart  in  this  age  of  passion  and 
love,  the  voice  of  nature  which  is  awakening,  calling 
the  boy  with  a  power  that  is  superior  to  grace,  all 
these  things   are   whispering  to  the   youth  that  per- 

6  Investigate  the  origin  of  the  vocation  and  the  truth  will 
become  known. 

7  Do   not  confound  the  boy  of  the   Spanish   Colonies  with 
the  boy  from  Spain  proper  (the  climates  are  different). 

8  According  to  my  observations,   such  is   the  case  in  more 
than  seventy  per  cent. 


248  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

petual  chastity  is  very  difficult.  But  what  shall  he  do? 
Turn  elsewhere?  This  his  directors  counsel  him  to 
do,  when  he  confesses  freely  to  them.  But  how  shall 
he  go  about  it?  At  the  first  word  his  father  says  to 
him  with  an  angry  frown :  "That  is  impossible,  you 
shall  die  first.9  Don't  you  know  that  for  you  we 
have  mortgaged  half  our  patrimony?  Is  it  thus  that 
you  pay  us  for  the  sacrifices  which  we  have  made 
for  you?"  Then  his  mother  comes,  with  tears  and 
kisses,  going  to  the  length  of  throwing  herself  at  the 
feet  of  her  son,  imploring  him  to  persevere.10  What 
shall  this  boy  do  in  the  face  of  this  harrowing  situa- 
tion? Many  times  he  gives  in,  thinking  that  with  a 
little  more  precaution  he  may  be  chaste ;  he  thinks  in 
good  faith  that  he  has  reformed  completely,  and  be- 
tween the  caresses  of  his  mother  and  the  approbation 
of  his  father,  he  offers  once  again  to  continue  in  his 
sacerdotal  career.  Unhappy  boy!  Soon  he  will  be 
convinced  that  his  passions  are  stronger  than  his  good 
intentions.  But  now  he  can  no  longer  retract;  for  al- 
though he  has  not  yet  taken  his  vows,  the  obligations 
made  by  his  family  are  for  him  more  weighty  even 
than  his  vows.  To  be  chaste  is  morally  impossible ; 
and  it  is  equally  impossible  to  retract.  What  shall  he 
do  in  this  grievous  conflict? 

Ah,  Your  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  do  not  think 
that  some  sectarian  is  speaking  to  you.  A  man  is 
speaking  to  you  who  has  visited  more  seminaries  than 
there  are  in  North  America ;  who  has  lived  more  than 

9  This  is  the  most  frequent  and  common  language. 

10  This  is  a  very  frequent  act.  In  many  cases  I  have  been 
a  personal  witness. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  249 

twenty-five  years  among  priests  and  seminarists,  who 
has  heard  thousands  of  general  confessions.  See  what 
ordinarily  happens;  it  is  horrible,  but  it  is  true.  The 
youth  makes  a  compact  with  vice,  and  he  makes  it 
under  the  most  horrible  conditions,  as  a  hypocrite  and 
vow-breaker.  For  fear  that  his  disorderly  life  may 
become  known,  he  practises  secret  vices,  he  becomes 
the  most  crafty  hypocrite.  He  goes  to  ordinary  con- 
fessions sacrilegiously,  fearing  that  otherwise  he  may 
be  suspended  by  his  order;  and  it  is  only  when  he 
meets  with  the  monk,  when  he  retires  to  some  convent 
for  spiritual  exercise,  that  he  dares  to  be  explicit  in 
his  confessions.  Our  professional  dignity  forbids  us 
to  go  more  into  details;  but  we  can  assure  the  reader 
that  there  have  been  seminaries  that  were  closed  be- 
cause the  majority  of  the  inmates  (there  were  about 
two  hundred)  had  become  contaminated  with  the 
plague  of  Pentapolis.  And  we  know  a  number  of 
seminaries,  that  should  likewise  be  closed,  because 
the  vice  of  Sodom  corrodes  the  majority  of  its  inhabi- 
tants.    Intelligenti  pauca. 

What  can  be  expected  of  youths  who  prepare  them- 
selves under  these  conditions  to  take  holy  orders? 
What  ecclesiastical  or  gentlemanly  honor  can  be  ex- 
pected of  youths  who  enter  the  priesthood  degraded 
as  gentlemen,  and  sacrilegious  as  priests?  We  are 
morally  convinced  that  if  a  society  could  be  formed 
with  the  object  of  indemnifying  the  parents  for  the 
expenses  they  incurred  for  their  boys,  and  that  if  some 
dignified  office  were  given  to  the  seminarists,  ninety 
per  cent  of  them  would  abandon  their  career  between 


25O  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

the  ages  of  twenty  and  twenty-five.11  But  as  there 
is  no  such  society,  the  youths  enter  the  priesthood  in 
the  most  detestable  of  conditions.  Will  the  ordina- 
tion which  they  receive,  in  the  majority  of  cases 
against  the  express  mandate  of  their  last  confessor, 
make  them  any  better?  We  will  answer  in  a  few 
veiled  words. 

In  our  large  and  varied  experience  with  multitudes 
of  youths,  we  can  swear  as  a  priest  and  affirm  as  a 
gentleman,  that  the  youths  are  not  bettered.  And  on 
the  same  terms  we  can  assure  the  reader  that  we 
have  heard  the  same  views  expressed  in  intimate  con- 
versations with  many  eminent  Spaniards,  Frenchmen, 
and  Italians.12  And  whenever  we  have  asked  any 
Jesuit  Father,  any  Franciscan  or  Capuchin,  and  other 
priests  who  have  visited  some  dioceses,  devoting  their 
time  to  work  among  the  priests,  we  have  received  the 
same  answer.  It  may  be  said  that  among  the  priests 
there  is  no  conviction  so  general  and  deep-seated  as 
this. 

With  the  knowledge  that  we  are  handling  fire,  we 
will  cite  an  example  and  give  a  reason  which  we  think 
is  overwhelming.  Engaged  in  missionary  work  in  one 
of  the  largest  dioceses  of  Spain,13  which  is  considered 
one  of  the  best,  we  received  various  informations  on 

11  My  long  experience  and  over  one  thousand  cases  au- 
thorizes me  to  formulate  such  proportion. 

12 1  can  assure  you  as  a  gentleman  that  I  can  set  forth  over 
thirty  testimonies  of  illustrious  prelates,  and  more  than  fifty 
notable  missionaries. 

13 1  do  not  consider  it  proper  to  publish  the  name  of  the 
diocese,  nor  of  the  Provisor,  but  these  can  be  secured  by 
Cardinal  Gibbons  or  any  Catholic  prelate,  who  takes  the  pains 
to  write  to  the  publishers,  who  will  gladly  produce  same. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  25 1 

the  infraction  of  Benedict  XIV's  Bulla  Sacramcntum 
Pocnitcntiac.  Returning  twice  consecutively  to  the 
same  place  to  preach,  we  observed  with  a  sorrowful 
surprise  that  this  most  grave  of  abuses  continued, 
and  that  the  Palace  did  not  seem  to  take  any  note  of 
it.  Authorized  and  commissioned  by  one  of  the  peni- 
tents to  hand  in  a  denunciation  personally,  and  hav- 
ing complied  with  the  ritual  ordinances,  we  went  upon 
our  errand.  The  Provisor  to  whom  we  carried  our 
complaint,  and  who  honored  us  with  his  intimate 
friendship,  answered  us  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  as  we 
will  confirm  under  oath :  "Oh,  Father,  I  do  not  know 
what  we  shall  do,  for  nearly,  if  not  all,  are  doing  the 
same  thing;  and  on  the  other  hand  I  have  just  re- 
ceived orders  from  Rome,  that  we  shall  be  lenient  on 
this  matter." 

We  stood  dumbfounded  at  hearing  such  revela- 
tions :  in  the  first  place,  although  from  our  own  ex- 
perience we  could  assert  that  celibacy  was  not  ob- 
served, we  had  never  come  across  the  like  of  this  de- 
grading and  horrible  corruption ;  and  in  the  second 
place,  if  Rome  understood  that  the  abuse  was  so  great 
as  to  call  for  a  degree  of  tolerance,  we  knew  that  this 
was  not  the  remedy,  but  something  else  much  more 
emphatic.  We  went  about  for  a  long  time  pondering, 
doubting  that  such  a  monstrous  order  could  have  come 
from  Rome,  which  is  wont  to  be  so  cautious  in  such 
matters.  We  asked  many  bishops ;  they  all  gave  us 
the  same  answer,  and  when  Cardinals  like  Vives  pro- 
mulgate such  orders  and  such  doctrine,  then  we  ceased 
to  doubt.14    And  now,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  a  brief  com- 

u  Cardinal  Vives:    Compendium  juris  Canonici. 


252  fcOMAN   CATHOLICISM 

mentary,  but  in  such  a  way  that  outsiders  shall  not 
understand  it. 

The  last  thing  the  Catholic  priest  loses  is  the  de- 
corum of  the  confessional.  It  may  be  said  that  he 
who  once  loses  it  there,  thereby  falls  into  the  way  of 
losing  it  habitually  elsewhere.  When  abuses  of  the 
nature  of  those  penalized  by  Benedict  XIV  become 
general,  to  the  point  that  men  like  the  Provisor  to 
whom  we  have  referred  speak  of  them  as  he  did,  and 
when  Rome  issues  orders  like  those  we  quoted  with- 
out translating,15  it  may  be  asserted  that  celibacy  has 
ceased  to  be  a  general  custom  among  the  priests. 
Anyone  who  examines  this  question  and  yet  persists 
in  believing  the  contrary,  would,  we  verily  think,  per- 
sist in  believing  the  priests  to  be  chaste,  even  though 
he  saw  the  vow  of  celibacy  publicly  broken  in  the 
streets  and  market  places. 

What  are  the  consequences  of  this  most  lamentable 
slackening  of  morals  ?  Alas !  for  the  priest  they  are 
the  most  sinister  and  deplorable.  What  peace  can 
there  be  in  the  mind  of  the  priest,  who  knows  that 
he  is  committing  a  horrible  sacrilege  every  time  he 
absolves  another,  that  he  is  committing  the  same  sin 
every  time  he  celebrates,  and  every  time  he  admin- 
isters the  Holy  Communion?  How  can  he  speak  of 
heaven  when  his  conscience  is  smirched  with  sacri- 
leges which  are  not  committed  even  in  hell?  How 
can  he  preach  virtue  when  he  knows  himself  to  be  a 
cesspool  of  horrible  vices?  How  can  he  speak  with 
energy  and  unction  of  God's  justice  and  providence, 

15  Prima  vice  vigiletur,  secunda  vigiletur  attentius,  tertia 
procedatur.     (Edition,  1905.) 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  253 

when  he  knows  that  if  they  exist,  he  is  the  first  of  evil- 
doers and  reprobates?  The  final  consequence  of  celi- 
bacy for  the  priest  is  hypocrisy,  despair,  or  incre- 
dulity. We  are  so  firmly  convinced  of  these  disinte- 
grating consequences  that  if  Romanism  must  continue 
as  it  is  now,  we  should  prefer  a  thousand  times  that 
our  beloved  Spain  would  turn  Protestant;  for  in  that 
case  it  would  at  least  preserve  the  faith  of  Christ, 
which  it  has  now  very  nearly  lost. 

The  people  being  thus  abandoned,  as  it  were,  by 
the  clergy,  the  decadence  in  faith  and  customs  among 
them  in  consequence  is  frightful.    To  speak  of  Cath- 
olic progress  among  the  Latin  people  is  to  betray  one's 
ignorance  of  the  state  of  their  collective  conscience. 
In  Latin  Europe  there  are  inheritances  and  Catholic 
atavisms,  but  the  Catholic  individualities  as  such,  are 
disappearing  and  coming  to  an  end  with  a  steadiness 
of   progression   that   must   cause  the   gravest   appre- 
hensions.    A  nation  like  Spain16  continues  Catholic 
because  its  antecedents  were  such,  because  the  national 
and  family  customs  are  such,  but  the  Catholic  spirit 
and  the  individual  Catholic  sentiment  no  longer  exist. 
How  can  persons  call  themselves  Catholic  who  do  not 
go  to  confession  or  take  the  Communion  even  once 
a  year?     How  can  persons  call  themselves  Catholics 
in  the  Roman  sense,  who  do  not  fast  or  go  to  mass 
on    the    prescribed    days,    or   believe    in    the    infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope?  who  speak  of  priests,  monks  and 
nuns,  only  to  deride  them  ? 

Does  the  reader  want  more  data  than  those  we  have 
named?     Look   at   the   results   obtained   by   Catholic 
19  You  can  consult  many  of  the  Pastorales. 


254  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

work  of  a  collective  and  national  character.17  Catho- 
lic congresses  are  convened,  and  adjourn  without 
having  arrived  at  any  particular  results.  A  Catholic 
periodical  is  launched,  and  it  dies  without  having 
obtained  any  subscriptions.18  Circles  for  Catholic 
work  are  organized,  and  they  disappear  without  hav- 
ing achieved  any  results.  A  Catholic  party  is  pro- 
jected, and  it  does  not  get  any  further  than  the  elec- 
tion of  a  deputy,  and  so  forth.19 

Does  Your  Eminence  know  why  Protestantism 
does  not  progress  there?  Because,  in  addition  to  the 
national  atavism,  they  are  not  very  prudent  in  the 
election  of  persons,20  generally  placing  in  high  posi- 
tion in  their  Church  some  convert  from  Catholicism 
who  has  been  expelled  for  some  gross  scandal.  The 
Catholic  priest  is  quick  to  take  advantage  of  this, 
and  points  to  Luther's  marriage  with  a  nun,  saying 
that  this  is  not  religion,  but  matrimony  of  monks 
and  priests,  and  the  poor  faithful,  one  who  does  not 
know  the  first  thing  about  Protestantism,  believes  it 
to  be  worse  than  his  own  religion,  although  he  sees 
the  abuses  in  his  own  Church  and  the  scandals  of  his 
own  pastors.  On  the  day  when  Protestantism  shall 
seriously  undertake  to  discuss  its  doctrines,  when  the 
people  shall  see  ministers  as   honorable  as   we  have 

17  Read  Sarda  and  Salvany  about  this  Congress. 

18  The  Catholic  Movements. 

19  Mr.  Urquijo. 

20  Compare  the  subscriptions  of  the  non-Catholic  newspapers 
such  as  The  Liberal,  The  Impartial,  Heraldo  de  Madrid,  El 
Motin,  Las  Dominicales,  etc.,  etc.,  with  the  Catholic  ones, 
such  as  the  Correo  Espanol,  Siglo  Futuro,  etc.,  etc.,  and  you 
will  find  that  for  each  subscriber  of  the  latter  the  former 
has  one  hundred. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  255 

seen  them  in  this  nation,  congregations  as  serious  as 
those  we  see  established  here  everywhere;  on  the  day 
when  the  Spanish  people  can  convince  itself  that 
Protestantism  far  from  denying  every  religion,  as  the 
priest  preaches,  affirms  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  not 
the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  the  efficacy  of  the  re- 
demption and  not  the  indulgences,  the  invocation  of 
Christ  and  not  the  cult  of  the  saints — on  that  day 
Romanism  will  disappear  to  a  large  extent  from  the 
most  Roman  nation  of  Europe.  We  know  our  peo- 
ple well  enough  to  affirm  this  positively. 

Perhaps  the  Romanist  will  say:  but  with  such  a 
dispensation  the  Roman  clergy  will  lose  the  aureole 
of  its  prestige.  Why?  Is  this  dispensation  the  same 
as  the  obligation?  If  the  obligation  to  remain  celi- 
bate is  removed,  and  the  priest  be  free  to  marry,  then 
he  can  still  elect  to  remain  a  celibate.  And  are  not 
those  who  cannot  practice  this  supernatural  virtue, 
led  on  a  more  secure  path  by  such  a  concession? 
Does  not  St.  Paul  tell  us,  that  it  is  better  to  marry 
than  to  follow  one's  passions  without  it?  Do  you 
think  that  celibacy  would  cease  with  such  a  dispensa- 
tion? If  so  you  would  thereby  admit  that  immorality 
within  the  Church  is  universal,  and  that  this  reform 
should  be  introduced.  But  do  not  fear  that  with  this 
step,  the  few  men  who  now  by  nature  or  by  grace 
continue  truly  celibate  will  not  remain  so.  And  their 
example,  besides  edifying  the  others,  would  make  it 
possible  for  the  Church  to  castigate  severely  the  guilty 
ones. 

Since,  then,  celibacy  is  not  observed,  and  the  Roman 
18 


256  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Church  knows  it,  she  should  modify  this  law  as  she 
has  modified  many  of  her  other  laws,  leaving  the 
Roman  priest  free,  just  as  she  leaves  the  Greek  priest 
free.  She  would  thereby  preserve  celibate  those  who 
can  now  be  so,  and  could  compel  those  who  indulge 
in  abuses  to  live  up  to  their  obligations. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE   INQUISITION   AND   ROMANISM. 

AS  a  writer  and  as  a  Spaniard  I  cannot  remain  in 
silence  after  reading  Chapter  XVIII  of  Car- 
dinal Gibbons'  work.  Either  I  cannot  read,  or  Car- 
dinal Gibbons  thinks  that  religious  persecution  had  its 
home  chiefly  in  Spain,  and  that  its  measures  were 
hatched  in  the  tenebrous  courts  of  Austria.1  My  poor 
country !  How  those  who,  in  all  decorousness,  should 
defend  you,  mock  at  you  for  that  which  you  deemed 
most  sacred !  You  were  the  manikin  of  Romanism,2 
and  in  its  murderous  attacks  on  liberty,  you  permitted 
yourself  to  be  its  hangman.  Mockery  and  disdain 
are  your  reward.  Ah !  you  listened  to  the  accursed 
siren  of  the  Vatican ;  you  thought  that  her  enchanting 
voice  was  the  voice  of  Heaven ;  that  her  counsels  and 
doctrine  were  beneficent  and  saving;  to  your  own 
detriment  you  favored  them  and  helped  them  to  the 
limit  of  your  ability.  And  those  who  formerly  praised 
you,  calling  you  the  right  arm  of  the  Church,3  now 
heap  abuse  upon  you,  in  the  same  way  and  for  the 

1  Cardinal   Gibbons :    Faith  of   Our  Fathers,  Chap.   XVIII. 

2  Encyclopedia  Britannica :  Head,  Inquisition.  You  will  see 
that  the  Catholic  Kings  obstructed  and  delayed  all  acts  con- 
cerning those  matters.  Read  Mariana  and  Fuente :  On  the 
Inquisition.  Read  Canovas  del  Castillo,  the  illustrious  Span- 
ish statistician :  His  great  book  entitled  Casa  de  Austria  (The 
House  of  Austria). 

3  Title  given  by  many  Popes  to  the  House  of  Austria. 

(257) 


258  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

same  things  for  which  they  formerly  applauded  you ! 
You  listened  obediently  to  the  Pope  when  he  said  to 
you:  In  the  name  of  God,  whose  Vicar  I  am  on 
earth,  arise  and  march  against  my  enemies.  And 
you  unwarily  did  spill  the  blood  of  your  children  in 
torrents,  and  did  squander  the  millions  of  your  treas- 
ury ! 4  Oh,  if  you  had  only  trodden  Romanism  under 
foot  as  England  did,5  had  despised  it  as  France  de- 
spised it,6  then  perhaps  your  beautiful  flag  would  still 
be  flying  over  your  vast  possessions  in  America,  over 
your  beautiful  European  pearls,  and  perhaps  you 
might  have  continued  as  one  of  the  most  powerful 
nations  of  the  world!  But  you  associated  yourself 
with  Romanism,  and  it  wrought  your  ruin,  and  as  if 
that  were  not  enough,  it  now  heaps  upon  you  scorn 
and  derision !  Take  this  lesson  to  heart  once  and  for 
all  time,  my  beloved  Spain ;  cast  away  bravely  this 
poisonous  viper,  which,  winding  around  your  body, 
has  held  you  from  exerting  your  full  strength;  rise 
up  from  the  earth  where  you  have  fallen  because  of 
your  excessive  complacency  to  Romanism.  Remem- 
ber what  you  once  were,  before  Romanism  took  hold 
of  you,  for  then  you  may  again  recover  a  great  part 
of  your  fallen  grandeur. 

No,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  religious  persecution  is  not 
really  the  product  of  Spain;  this  monstrosity  could 
not  have  been  brought  forth  elsewhere  but  in  Rome. 
This  terrifying  tribunal  could  not  be  the  work  of  any 

4  Read  La  Fuente,  Mariana,  Gebhart,  Canovas  del  Castillo: 
On  the  War  of  Germany,  England  and  Flanders. 

5  During  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 

6  Proclaiming  the  famous  Gallican  Liberties. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  259 

one  else  but  the  Popes.  I  can  never  read  Chapter 
XVIII  of  Cardinal  Gibbons'  work  without  being  re- 
minded of  an  anecdote  told  of  Leo  XIII.  It  is  said 
that  after  the  death  of  the  famous  historian  Cesar 
Cantu,7  some  blamed  him  for  not  always  having  de- 
fended the  Roman  Church,  and  Leo  XIII  replied 
energetically :  "He  did  not  always  defend  the  Roman 
Church,  but  he  always  defended  that  which  he  be- 
lieved to  be  true,  and  that  is  his  greatest  merit,  and," 
added  Leo,  with  an  air  of  disdain,  "a  group  of  Cath- 
olic historians  is  now  appearing  who  if  it  had  to  re- 
dact the  Gospels  would  suppress  Judas'  sale  of  Christ 
and  Peter's  negation,  in  order  not  to  scandalize  the 
faithful ;  if  calumniations  deserve  censure,  it  is  equally 
reprehensible  to  conceal  the  truth,  on  the  pretext  of 
defending  the  Church." 

With  all  due  respect  to  the  Cardinal's  scarlet,  it 
seems  to  me  that  Chapter  XVIII  of  Cardinal  Gibbons' 
work  should  be  signed  not  by  an  American  cardinal, 
but  by  one  of  those  prejudiced  Roman  writers  whom 
Leo  XIII  derided.  Neither  the  pontifical  tiara  nor 
the  cardinal's  hat  authorizes  the  wearer  to  misrepre- 
sent facts  or  falsify  history,  in  order  that  Romanism 
may  be  freed  from  the  reproach  of  having  been  for 
good  or  evil,  more  or  less  instrumental  in  creating 
and  upholding  the  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition.  To 
shift  the  consequences  of  this  tribunal  now  upon  the 
temporal  rulers,  seems  to  us  as  ridiculous  and  irra- 
tional as  to  lay  the  responsibility  for  the  executions 
of  the  present  day  upon  the  hangmen  who  kill  in  the 

7Anecdote  referring  to  the  European  Newspaper. 


26o  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

name  of  the  law  the  victims  handed  over  to  them  by 
the  courts. 

What  would  be  Your  Eminence's  opinion  of  a  con- 
temporary writer  who,  in  speaking  of  the  rivers  of 
blood  shed  during  the  Russo-Japanese  war,  should 
foolishly  upbraid  the  poor  soldiers,  saying  to  them: 
Villains,  evil-doers!  why  did  you  take  up  your  bayo- 
nets, why  did  you  discharge  your  guns?  It  is  you 
who  have  caused  such  desolation  and  ruin,  not  the 
Czar  of  Russia,  nor  the  Mikado,  because  they  re- 
mained quietly  in  their  palaces.  Would  this  be 
rational  or  just?  Again  we  find  the  language  of 
Your  Eminence's  in  the  following  passages  as  irra- 
tional as  that  of  the  preceding  chapter,  when  you 
practically  say:  "Why  are  you  scolding  the  peace- 
ful and  venerable  shepherds  of  the  Church?  Why  do 
you  blame  Romanism  for  the  blazing  stakes  of  the 
Inquisition  ?  This  was  not  their  work,  but  that  of  the 
rulers,  and  more  especially  of  the  Spanish  rulers.'' 
To  your  assertion  you  could  add  without  opening  any 
book,  Auctoritaie  qua  fungor  (By  my  authority).  We 
reply  that  we  will  prove  the  contrary  on  historical 
grounds. 

The  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  is  solely  and  entire- 
ly the  work  of  the  Popes.  Through  them  it  came  to 
life,  through  them  it  grew  and  flourished.8  They,  not 
the  rulers,  pronounced  the  sentences ;  they,  and  not  the 
rulers,  condemned  to  the  stake  and  to  death.     The 

8  See  the  end  of  this  Chapter  for  a  complete  account,  from 
history,  of  one  of  the  Inquisition's  autos  da  fe — the  public 
judicial  announcement  and  execution  of  its  sentences. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  26l 

rulers  °  were  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  hangmen 
and  soldiers  who  executed  the  orders  of  the  Popes. 
Nay  more,  the  rulers,  including  those  of  Spain,  in 
time  refused  this  hangman's  office.10  For  when  the 
thunders  of  the  Vatican  lost  their  destructive  force, 
when  the  rulers  became  convinced  that  the  Roman 
excommunications  might  be  set  at  naught  like  the 
impotent  decrees  of  a  decadent  despotism,  does  Your 
Eminence  know  what  they  then  did,  against  the  out- 
cries of  Rome?  They  suppressed  this  tribunal;  and 
now  the  Inquisition,  as  such,  exists  only  at  Rome,  to 
the  shame  of  humanity  and  the  confusion  of  Cardinal 
Gibbons.  So  that,  Cardinal,  the  rulers  had  no  part 
whatever  in  its  glorious  or  ignoble  establishment; 
all  the  glory  of  that  belongs  to  Rome.  And  Rome 
had  no  part  whatever  in  the  praiseworthy  or  blam- 
able  act  of  abolishing  it;  this  is  exclusively  the  work 
of  the  rulers. 

But  let  us  come  down  to  the  facts.  When  did  this 
so-called  Holy  Tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  appear 
and  whence  did  it  come?  Not  long  ago  the  writer 
met  aboard  a  steamer  an  Englishman,  who,  like  Car- 
dinal Gibbons,  held  forth  as  follows :  "Oh,  cruel  Spain ; 
there  stood  the  cradle  of  the  Inquisition,  there  num- 
berless men  were  burned."  "Sir,"  I  asked  him,  "what 
Spanish  ruler  was  the  father  of  this  ignoble  creature?" 
"Philip  II,"  he  replied.  "Oh,  no,  sir,  you  are  mis- 
taken by  not  less  than  three  hundred  years."  Con- 
fused by  my  answer,  he  said,  "Then  perhaps  he  abol- 

°Read  the  Jesuit  Ricardo  Capa :    Head,  The   Spanish   In- 
quisition. 
10  Read  Cadiz  Cort,  and  Ferdinand  VII :    Decree. 


262  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

ished  it."  "Again  you  are  mistaken,  and  by  more 
than  three  hundred  years."  When  I  came  to  this 
country  and  read  the  famous  Chapter  XVIII,  of  Car- 
dinal Gibbons'  book,  I  could  not  help  thinking  that 
this  Englishman  might  very  well  be  the  disciple  of 
Cardinal  Gibbons.  But  this  cardinal  speaks  so  un- 
certainly, with  so  little  regard  to  history,  that  any 
one  who  reads  his  Chapter  XVIII  might  think  that 
we  are  the  originators  of  this  horrible  creature.  No, 
Cardinal,  the  Spaniards  are  not  the  fathers  of  that 
ignoble  thing.  This  sanguinary  Roman  matron  had 
already  attained  to  a  good  size  when  she  came  to  our 
hearths.  Her  scythe  and  her  stake  had  already 
mowed  down  and  burned  many  thousands  of  un- 
happy Christians.  Therefore  we  did  not  originate  it, 
nor  did  we  instruct  her  in  her  cruel  artifices.  Let  us 
hear  the  testimony  of  history. 

The  Inquisition  originated  in  Languedoc  u  between 
1200  and  1 2 16.  Its  natural  and  legitimate,  not  adopted, 
father,  was  Pope  Innocent  III,  who  instituted  the  first 
inquisitors,  Guy  and  Regmer,  whom  he  authorized, 
by  virtue  of  his  all-inclusive  power  of  binding  and 
loosing,  to  seize  the  property  of  heretics,  including 
presumably  therein  the  Popes ;  to  take  away  their  es- 
tates from  princes,  and  to  behead  and  burn  those 
whose  beliefs  were  prejudicial  to  Romanism.  His- 
tory tells  us  12  that  the  first  inquisitors  were  worthy 

11  Read  Encyclopedia  Britannica  :  Head,  Inquisition.  Hef  ele  : 
History  of  the  Inquisition.  Before  this  epoch  there  were  al- 
ready inquisitors,  but  they  appear  as  episcopal  functionaries, 
and  as  a  part  of  the  episcopal  ministry;  only  since  Innocent 
III  does  this  tribunal  appear  as  existing  independently. 

12  Read  Zorrilla :    Historia  de  los  Frailes  y  sus  Conventos. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  263 

of  their  name.  Once,  when  they  did  not  care  to  take 
the  trouble  of  investigating  the  accusation  brought 
before  them,  they  ordered  a  general  butchery,  and 
when  protestations  were  made  that  among  the  victims 
were  true  followers  of  Rome,  they  replied,  as  not  the 
most  sanguinary  of  the  Roman  emperors  would  have 
replied :  "No  matter,  these  will  go  to  heaven." 

Your  Eminence  will  see  therefore  that  the  father- 
land where  stood  the  cradle  of  the  Inquisition  is  not 
Spain;  that  its  natural  and  legitimate  father,  whom 
we  have  surely  traced,  is  not  found  among  the  Span- 
ish rulers.  And  history  further  tells  us  that  when 
this  tribunal  was  brought  into  Spain,  it  provoked 
riots  among  the  people,13  protests  from  the  bishops, 
and  even  difficulties  with  the  kings,  who  regarded  the 
inquisitors  as  an  invasion  from  Rome  into  their 
states.  If  only  they  had  been  less  obedient  to  Roman- 
ism !  If  only  they  had  feared  the  poverty  and  depopu- 
lation of  their  states  more  than  the  pontifical  thun- 
ders, then  Spain  would  not  be  in  the  condition  in 
which  she  now  is.  She  would  not  have  furnished  any 
pretext — for  there  are  no  just  grounds,  as  we  shall 
see  further  on — for  the  haughty  disdain  with  which 
Your  Eminence  is  treating  her  now. 

Did  the  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  change  in  char- 
acter when  it  was  transplanted  into  Spain?  Did  it 
cease  to  be  a  pontifical  institution,  being  transformed 
instead  into  a  royal  one?  Anyone  who  has  read  ec- 
clesiastical history  even  superficially,  or  is  but  slightly 

13  Mariana,  La  Fuente :  History  of  Spain.  Canovas  del 
Castillo :  Casa  de  Austria.  Father  Ricardo  Capa :  The  Span- 
ish Inquisition.     Encyclopedia  Britannica :    Inquisition. 


264  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Inquisition,  can 
assert  roundly  and  without  hesitation,  that  this  tri- 
bunal continued  to  be  exclusively  pontifical.  Let  us 
cite  some  facts  which  will  no  longer  leave  room  for 
the  least  doubt.14  Who  appointed  the  inquisitors? 
The  Pope,  not  the  rulers.  Who  had  power  to  restrict 
or  to  amplify  their  functions?  The  Pope,  and  not 
the  rulers.  To  whom  were  the  inquisitors  subject  in 
the  exercise  of  their  terrible  power?  To  the  Pope, 
and  not  to  the  rulers.  And  now  the  most  convincing 
proof:  To  whom  could  the  poor  victim  appeal?  To 
the  Pope,  not  to  the  rulers.15  Woe  to  them  if  they 
had  listened  to  such  appeals !  Therefore  a  tribunal 
whose  judges  are  appointed  exclusively  by  the  Popes, 
whose  power  is  derived  from  the  Popes,  and  the  exer- 
cise of  whose  functions  depends  solely  on  the  Popes, 
is  entirely  and  absolutely  a  papal  tribunal.  If  the 
kings  could  not  intervene  in  anything,  neither  in  the 
appointment  of  its  officers  nor  in  its  jurisdiction,  if 
they  had  no  power  to  modify  or  to  alter  any  of  its 
workings,  interfere  with  any  of  its  sentences  or  listen 
to  appeals  from  its  judgment,  how  can  anyone  call  it 
a  royal  tribunal?  This  is  as  illogical  and  irrational 
as  it  would  be  to  attribute  to  the  Spanish  rulers  the 
dictum  of  infallibility  because  their  ambassadors  were 
present  at  the  Council  of  the  Vatican.    A  little  more 

"Besides  the  authors  mentioned  consult  Emerie:  Rules  of 
the  Inquisition  Tribunal.  Torquemada:  Head,  Instruction. 
All  the  above  statements  on  this  subject  can  be  read  in  in- 
numerable briefs,  in  existence  in  different  archives.  Ours  is  a 
copy  from  the  Sacraments  Autos  which  took  place  during  the 
reign  of  Charles  II. 

15Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe;  head,  Inqui- 
sition. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  265 

impartiality,  Cardinal,  if  you  please,  and  a  little  more 
seriousness — especially  when  it  comes  to  a  question 
of  making  statements  that  cast  discredit  upon  a  na- 
tion, whose  greatest  errors  were  committed  not  be- 
cause it  was  Spanish,  but  because  it  was  Roman.  If 
not  for  the  sake  of  truth,  which  everyone  who  writes 
for  publication  should  respect,  then  at  least  for  the 
sake  of  gratitude  Your  Eminence  should  have  been 
more  exact  and  truthful. 

Perhaps  some  Romanist  will  say — and  Cardinal 
Gibbons  seems  to  incline  to  such  a  view — :  We  do  not 
deny  that  the  Inquisition  in  its  origin  and  jurisdiction 
was  a  pontifical  institution,  yet  it  was  not  the  Pontiff 
who  sentenced  and  executed,  it  was  the  state  and  the 
rulers;  therefore  they,  and  not  the  Pontiff,  must  be 
held  to  account  for  the  numbers  upon  numbers  of  un- 
happy men  who  perished  through  it.  This  second  as- 
sertion is  as  anti-historical,  irrational  and  illogical  as 
the  first.  Let  us  now  penetrate  into  the  tenebrous, 
subterraneous  workings  of  the  inquisitorial  courts, 
let  us  accompany  the  victims  from  the  time  that  they 
fell  into  the  claws  of  the  Inquisition  up  to  the  mo- 
ment when  they  breathed  their  last  sigh  in  the  midst 
of  the  most  horrible  torments,  roasted  at  the  stake. 
As  we  have  seen  that  this  tribunal  was  a  wholly  pon- 
tifical institution  as  regards  its  powers  and  jurisdic- 
tion, so  we  shall  now  see  that  it  preserves  the  same 
character  as  regards  its  sentences  and  their  execution. 

Who  opened  and  conducted  the  process?  The  in- 
quisitors, who  were  the  ministers  of  the  Pope,  not 
public  officials  dependent  on  the  king.    Who  heard  the 


266  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

pleadings  of  the  culprit 16  and  the  excuses  he  made  in 
his  own  behalf?  The  inquisitor,  judging  in  the  name 
of  the  Pope,  and  not  the  magistrates  judging  in  the 
name  of  the  king.  Who  ordered  the  preliminary  tor- 
ments in  order  to  extract  forced  confessions?  Who 
applied  the  torments  of  tongues,  and  burning  candles, 
the  iron  collars  and  the  rack?17  Look  at  these,  Car- 
dinal— the  inquisitors,  in  the  name  of  the  Pope,  not 
the  hangman  of  the  nation,  in  the  name  of  the  king. 
Who  carried  out  these  inhuman  orders?  The  inquisi- 
torial officials,  not  the  functionaries  of  the  king. 
Where  were  the  culprits  kept  imprisoned  during  their 
trial?  In  the  prisons  of  the  Inquisition,  which  were 
dependencies  of  the  Pope,  not  in  the  royal  prisons  su- 
bordinate to  the  king.  Therefore  the  person  who 
opens  and  conducts  the  process,  who  attends  to  all 
the  accessories  and  preliminaries  of  the  case,  includ- 
ing the  extraction  of  confessions  on  the  rack,  is  the 
Pope,  through  his  ministers,  and  not  the  king  through 
his  functionaries. 

Who  pronounces  the  sentence?  We  find  over- 
whelming evidence  in  history  to  the  effect  that  the 
passing  of  the  sentence  depended  exclusively  on  the 
Pope  and  not  on  the  king.  Who  absolved  or  con- 
demned the  culprit?  The  inquisitors,18  judges  with 
papal  jurisdiction,  and  not  the  secular  judges  under 

16  Read  Emerie ;  also  Torquemada :  His  rules  and  instruc- 
tions. Also  the  innumerable  appointments  given  by  Popes 
from  Innocent  III  to  Leo  XII,  and  you  will  see  how  the 
inquisitors  are  always  and  in  every  case,  functionaries  of  the 
Popes,  from  whom  they  take  orders  exclusively  to  judge  cases. 

17  Besides  the  authors  mentioned  on  this  subject,  investi- 
gate and  read  any  Auto  Sacramental  process,  in  existence. 

18  Read  same  authors  cited  in  note  16. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  267 

the  king's  jurisdiction.  Who  determined  whether  or 
not  the  property  of  the  culprit  should  be  confiscated, 
and  whether  such  confiscation  should  be  absolute  or 
only  partial?  (Look  at  this  question,  Cardinal.19)  The 
tribunal  of  the  Inquisition,  which  judged  in  the  name 
of  the  Pope,  not  any  secular  tribunal  depending  on  the 
king.  Who  decreed  whether  the  punishment  should 
be  imprisonment  or  the  galleys,  whether  it  should  be 
for  a  set  period  or  for  life?  Tell  us,  Cardinal  Gib- 
bons. The  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition,  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Pope,  not  some  tribunal  subject  to  the 
king.  And  finally  who  decided  whether  the  culprit 
should  die  by  the  hands  of  the  hangman  or  should 
be  burnt  alive?  Mark  well,  Cardinal.20  The  Inquisi- 
tion's ministers,  functionaries  and  judges,  in  the  name 
of  the  Pope,  and  not  any  person  who  obeyed  the  sig- 
nals or  mandates  of  the  king.  Therefore  the  condem- 
nation to  prison  or  rope,  to  the  galleys  or  the  fire  was 
pronounced  by  the  pontifical  power  and  not  by  the 
royal  power.21  Very  well,  then.  If  the  rulers  had  no 
power  of  intervention,  neither  at  the  beginning  nor 
during  the  trial,  nor  any  voice  in  the  final  judgment, 
how  can  the  rulers  be  taxed  with  such  monstrosities? 
Could  the  king  perchance  absolve  anyone  who  had 
been  condemned  by  the  Inquisition?  No,  a  thousand 
times  no.  Could  the  king  commute  or  ameliorate  the 
punishment  which  the  Inquisition  had  imposed?  No, 
a  thousand  times  no.    Could  the  king  put  off  the  pun- 

19  Read,  besides  authors  cited,  History  of  Spain,  by  Gebhart. 

20  Add  to  the  authors  cited,  La  Fuente :    History  of  Spain. 

21  Read  any  of  the  many  Sacramental  Autos. 


268  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

ishment  which  the  Inquisition  had  inflicted  ? 22  No, 
a  thousand  times  no.  What,  then,  had  the  king  to  do 
with  these  cases?  He  was,  as  we  have  said  before, 
the  executioner  who  finally  killed  the  victims  which 
the  court  of  the  Inquisition  handed  over  to  him. 

When  Your  Eminence  can  demonstrate  that  the  ex- 
ecutioners of  to-day  are  responsible  for  the  executions 
which  they  carry  out  by  order  and  in  the  name  of  the 
law,  then  Your  Eminence  can  also  assert  that  the  rul- 
ers and  not  the  Popes  are  the  ones  who  are  respon- 
sible for  the  crimes  of  the  Inquisition ;  but  since  Your 
Eminence  cannot  demonstrate  such  a  monstrosity,  it 
is  maintained  that  the  Inquisition  was  a  tribunal  purely 
ecclesiastical  in  its  origin,  in  its  development,  and  in 
each  and  every  one  of  its  sentences.  Whoever  seeks 
sincerely  for  the  truth  will  not  fail  to  find  such  men 
and  such  witnesses. 

Is  Your  Eminence  ignorant  of  the  fact 23  that  the 
Pope  was  king  of  a  large  part  of  Italy?  Does  Your 
Eminence  not  know,  that  in  the  Papal  State  also  here- 
tics were  hanged  and  burned?  Did  the  Spanish  rul- 
ers pronounce  these  sentences  there?  Were  Giordano 
Bruno,  Cagliostro,  and  the  thousands  of  other  vic- 
tims who  were  burned  in  the  Papal  State,  also  exe- 
cuted in  Spain  and  by  the  Spanish  rulers  ?  24  No, 
Cardinal  Gibbons !    Be  a  little  more  serious.    No  his- 

22  Read  any  of  the  many  Sacramental  Autos.  Only  the 
Pope  could  delay  any  punishment  and  allow  any  appeals ;  and 
many  a  time,  according  to  the  Jesuit  Father,  Ricardo  Capa, 
a  case  was  postponed  if  the  accused  was  a  rich  man  and  will- 
ing to  pay  the  Pope  for  it. 

23  Read  Rohrbacher,  Alzog,  Rivas :    Ecclesiastical   History. 

24  Read  any  Roman  historian,  and  add  Caesar  Cantu:  Reli- 
gious Persecution  in  Italy. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  269 

tory  should  ever  be  written  except  with  the  view  of 
telling  the  truth,  although  it  may  be  hard  and  may 
cost  dear.  He  who  does  not  possess  the  requisite 
strength  of  character  had  better  be  silent. 

In  further  proof  of  our  assertion,  history  tells  us 
that  even  after  the  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  had 
been  disestablished  in  all  the  other  European  states, 
it  continued  in  Rome;  when  the  temporal  power  dis- 
appeared, it  still  subsisted  in  so  far  and  in  such  a 
manner  as  it  could  under  the  circumstances.25  So  that 
in  this  twentieth  century  there  exists  at  Rome  the 
Tribunal  of  the  Holy  Office;  and  if  it  does  not  now 
order  heretics  to  be  hanged  or  burned,  this  is  not  be- 
cause Romanism  does  not  believe  that  it  can  hang  or 
burn,  and  that  such  means  are  legitimate  or  conven- 
ient, but  because  no  temporal  power  would  support 
it  in  such  insane  and  inhuman  projects.  But  if  Ro- 
manism should  again  come  into  its  ancient  prestige 
and  power,  then,  as  formerly,  and  to-morrow  as  yes- 
terday, it  would  decree  these  terrible  hecatombs  which 
now  fill  with  horror  the  illiterate  Romanists  who  at- 
tribute them  to  the  temporal  rulers,  in  ignorance  or 
denial  of  history.  We  shall  again  refer  to  this  point 
when  we  take  up  the  Romanist  thesis.  And  we  will 
close  this  chapter  now  by  asserting  that  all  the  glory 
or  ignominy  which  belongs  to  the  Inquisition  must  be 
attributed  solely  and  exclusively  to  the  gentle  power 
and   paternal   government   of   the   Roman   Pontiffs.26 

26  Read  the  actual  Rules  of  the  Holy  Tribunal  of  the  In- 
quisition, or  Santo  Oficio;  both  names  are  applied  to  the 
same. 

26  A  Typical  Auto  Da  Fe.— I  believe  that  nothing  can  bet- 
ter   demonstrate    the    permanent    character    of    the    horrible 


27O  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Romanist   Tribunal    of    the    Inquisition    than    the    report    we 
transcribe,  literally  translated,  of  one  of  its  autos  da  fe. 

I  beg  the  reader  to  peruse  it  carefully  and  sincerely,  as  it  is 
enough  in  itself  to  prove  to  a  certainty  that  the  kings  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  decisions  or  jurisdiction  of  the  In- 
quisition. 

REPORT    OF   THE   GENERAL    AUTO    DA    FE    HELD    IN    MADRID   ON    THE 

30TH    DAY   OF   JUNE,    l68o,   ATTENDED   BY    KING  CHARLES    II 

AND    HIS    CONSORT    DNA.    MARIE    LUISA    DE   BOURBON. 

"It  being  remembered  by  the  king  that  he  had  heard  that 
his  august  father,  Philip  IV,  had  attended  with  extreme  delec- 
tation of  spirit  and  Christian  jubilation,  the  general  auto  da 
fe  celebrated  in  this  royal  city  in  1632,  he  had  on  many  oc- 
casions signified  to  various  persons  of  his  esteem  and  con- 
fidence how  much  it  would  please  him  to  witness  a  spectacle 
of  this  kind,  the  more  so  as  he  was  recently  married,  and 
wished  to  provide  to  his  young  and  beloved  spouse,  beside 
the  worldly  entertainments  and  pleasures  which  the  kings  of 
the  world  have  to  attend,  the  mystic  enjoyments  and  moral 
amusements  that  our  true  and  only  religion  provides  to  pure 
souls,  that  observe  its  precepts  to  become  firmer  each  day  in 
the  sound  foundations  of  faith. 

"The  General  Inquisitor  of  Spain  and  President  of  the 
Supreme  Council  of  the  Inquisition,  Don  Diego  Sarmiento 
Valladares,  Bishop  of  Oviedo,  knowing  from  its  origin  the 
monarch's  desire,  said  to  him  one  day,  that  having  on  hand 
many  finished  cases  and  plenty  of  culprits  already  sentenced 
in  the  prisons,  both  of  Toledo  and  of  Madrid,  the  Council 
had  decided  to  hold  an  auto  da  fe  in  the  before-mentioned 
city  of  Toledo,  and  invited  him  to  attend  in  order  to,  by  this 
means,  gratify  his  desire.  The  king  having  accepted  the  offer 
with  effusion,  declared  to  the  inquisitor-general  how  much 
better  it  would  be  to  hold  the  auto  da  fe  as  on  previous  occa- 
sions, in  the  Plaza  Mayor  (principal  square)  of  Madrid, 
avoiding  in  this  way  the  expense  and  the  trouble  that  the 
journey  must  occasion  to  the  royal  person  as  well  as  to  the 
humblest  official  taking  part  in  the  auto.  The  Supreme  Coun- 
cil having  met  and  become  aware  of  His  Majesty's  desires, 
it  was  unanimously  voted  that  the  auto  take  place  in  Madrid. 
The  inquisitor-general  invited  the  Duke  of  Medinaceli  to 
carry  the  standard  of  the  Faith  in  the  solemn  procession  of 
the  Cruz  Verde  (green  cross),  and  His  Excellency  accepted 
with  pleasure,  giving  evidence  of  his  religiousness  and  of  his 
great  love  and  respect  for  the  Inquisition. 

"Preparations  were  therefore  commenced  for  that  impor- 
tant event  by  appointing  special  commissioners  from  among 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  2*]! 

the  inquisitors,  each  charged  with  the  different  matters  re- 
quired for  the  best  order  and  brilliancy  of  the  performance. 
The  inquisition  at  Toledo  was  advised,  so  that  eight  days  be- 
fore the  celebration  of  the  auto  the  inquisitors  should  come 
to  Madrid  with  their  officers  and  families  and  sentenced  cul- 
prits. Notice  was  given  to  the  high  brother  of  the  Congrega- 
tion of  St.  Peter  the  Martyr,  and  to  the  members  of  the  Holy 
Office,  to  which  all  people  belonged,  from  the  highest  nobility 
of  Castile  to  the  humblest  workman,  and  whose  attendance 
is  so  necessary  for  the  better  order  of  all  public  acts  per- 
formed by  the  courts  of  justice.  The  Fraternity  at  once  as- 
sembled and  after  a  few  sittings,  everything  that  pertained  to 
its  office,  was  resolved  and  agreed  upon. 

"On  Thursday,  the  30th  of  May,  in  the  year  1680,  the  auto 
was  published,  and  the  beautiful  standard  of  the  Congrega- 
tion, which  was  of  crimson  silk  richly  embroidered  in  gold, 
was  placed  in  the  main  balcony  of  the  inn  and  residence  be- 
longing to  the  very  illustrious  bishop  and  inquisitor-general 
in  Torija  Street.  The  front  of  the  house  was  ornamented 
with  elaborate  bunting,  and  in  the  windows  close  to  the  bal- 
cony from  which  waved  the  standard,  there  had  been  placed 
kettle-drums  and  bugles,  that  from  time  to  time  announced  in 
harmonious  echoes  the  solemn  function  that  was  being  pre- 
pared. Within  a  short  time  the  officers  of  the  Congregation 
of  St.  Peter  the  Martyr  assembled,  as  well  as  the  commis- 
sioners, notaries  and  constables  from  the  court  then  convened, 
and  between  five  and  six  o'clock  in  the  evening,  the  procession 
started.  The  officers  rode  in  pairs  upon  horses  showily 
caparisoned,  headed  on  the  right  by  Manuel  Ignacio  Novalles, 
high  constable  of  the  Congregation,  and  by  his  side  Marcos 
de  Ondategui,  a  minister  of  the  Holy  Office,  both  carrying 
their  wands  raised.  Behind  the  cavalcade  followed  the  stand- 
ard of  the  Faith,  carried  by  Juan  de  Navascue's  minister  of 
the  Holy  Office,  and  the  oldest  steward  of  the  Congregation, 
while  Luis  Roman  and  Juan  Romero,  as  being  the  oldest 
deputies  of  said  Congregation,  bore  the  tassels.  Many  devout 
people,  though  strangers  to  the  institution,  went  along  with 
the  officers.  Among  them  were  some  titled  people  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Orders  who  considered  themselves  highly  hon- 
ored by  carrying  over  their  vestments  the  insignia  of  the  In- 
quisition ;  and  the  procession  was  closed  up  by  Sebastian  de 
Lara,  knight  of  Santiago,  high  constable  of  the  court  of 
Toledo,  and  Gaspar  Peinado  Tanega,  oldest  secretary  of  the 
Tribunal  of  this  royal  city.  The  first  warning  was  sounded 
at  the  door  of  the  Inquisitor-General  by  the  town  crier,  who 
repeated  what  was  being  read  to  him  from  a  paper  previously 
prepared  by  Lucas  Lopez  de  Moya,  officer  of  the  Holy  Office, 
notary  of  the  same,  and  a  resident  of  this  town. 
19 


2^2  ROMAN   CATHOLICISM 

"The  contents  of  the  same  were  as  follows:  'Know  all 
residents  and  neighbors  of  this  town  of  Madrid,  royal  resi- 
dence of  His  Majesty,  existing  in  and  inhabiting  the  same, 
that  the  Holy  Office  of  the  Inquisition  of  the  city  and  king- 
dom of  Toledo  will  celebrate  a  general  auto  da  fe  in  the 
Plaza  Mayor  (principal  square)  of  Madrid,  on  Sunday,  the 
30th  of  June,  of  the  present  year,  and  that  all  those  who  at- 
tend the  said  auto,  or  help  in  it,  will  be  granted  all  the  graces 
and  indulgences  given  by  the  High  Pontiffs,  and  this  is  hereby 
commanded  to  be  made  public,  so  that  it  may  become  known 
to  everyone.' 

"The  retinue  started  from  the  house  of  the  Inquisitor- 
General  toward  the  small  square  of  Dna.  Maria  de  Aragon, 
and  passing  through  that  of  Encarnacion  and  the  Tesoro 
Street,  it  went  on  to  the  Plaza  de  Palacio  (palace  square), 
in  front  of  which  the  second  cry  was  sounded,  while  their 
Majesties  were  at  the  glass  window  watching  the  procession 
with  great  satisfaction.  (And  here  we  must  note  a  circumstance 
that  speaks  for  the  religiousness  of  the  monarch,  and  it  is 
that  having  gone  to  visit,  as  was  his  wont,  his  august  mother 
in  the  Buen  Retiro,  he  advanced  the  hour  of  his  return  to 
the  palace,  so  as  to  be  present  when  the  procession  passed). 
The  third  cry  was  given  near  the  Church  of  St.  Mary,  facing 
the  queen  mother's  palace.  The  fourth  was  sounded  at  the 
gate  of  Guadalajara,  and  the  crowd  here  collected  of  people, 
carriages,  and  horses,  was  so  great  that  there  were  many 
crushings.  The  retinue  was  falling  into  such  disorder  that  it 
had  to  be  rearranged  in  the  Calle  Mayor  (principal  street), 
which  occurrence  brought  about  the  promulgation  of  an  edict, 
that  on  the  day  of  any  subsequent  autos,  to  avoid  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  disorder,  no  carriages  or  horses  should  circulate 
about  the  streets  through  which  the  procession  had  to  pass. 

"The  fifth  blare  was  sounded  at  the  Puerta  del  Sol  (Sun 
Gate),  the  sixth,  at  the  small  square  of  Anton  Martin,  the 
seventh  at  the  Plaza  Mayor  (principal  square)  and  the  eighth, 
at  that  of  San  Domingo  (Holy  Sunday),  the  brilliant  retinue 
continuing  afterward  by  the  Calle  Ancha  de  San  Barnardo 
(St.  Barnard  Broad  Street),  Flor  Street,  and  Inquisition 
Street,  passing  in  front  of  the  royal  tribunal  and  returning  to 
the  house  of  the  Inquisitor-General,  in  order  to  put  back  the 
standard  in  the  place  from  which  it  had  been  taken. 

"The  inquisitor  Fernando  Villegas  having  been  commis- 
sioned to  erect  an  amphitheater  on  which  the  auto  da  fe  was 
to  be  represented,  entrusted  the  plans  to  Jose  del  Olmo, 
Grand  Master  of  the  city  of  Madrid,  who  immediately  drew 
up  the  plans  which  he  submitted  to  the  commissioner.  These 
having  been  approved,  he  applied  to  His  Majesty  for  the  let- 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  273 

ter  ordering  the  municipality  to  proceed  with  the  construc- 
tion, as  was  in  effect  done,  the  king  decreeing  an  order  on 
June  6th  commanding  that  the  scaffolding  stands  and  fenc- 
ings necessary  for  the  occasion  be  erected  without  delay,  and 
recommending  great  promptitude  on  account  of  the  urgency 
of  the  case. 

"The  municipality  appointed  two  commissioners  to  do  the 
work,  and  having  agreed  with  the  designer,  Jose  del  Olmo, 
they  proceeded  to  get  the  material,  and  to  engage  hands  with 
all  haste.  It  was  a  wonder  that  a  building  of  such  dimensions 
could  be  finished  in  so  short  a  time,  for  it  was  commenced 
on  June  23d  and  completed  the  28th. 

"It  is  true  that  quite  a  number  of  workmen  labored  day 
and  night,  and  by  relays  so  that  the  work  should  not  suffer 
any  interruption,  but  it  is  also  true  that  enthusiasm  helped 
the  numbers,  for  the  workmen  did  not  stop  even  to  eat,  and 
instead  of  complaining  of  fatigue,  they  encouraged  one  an- 
other by  such  exclamations  uttered  in  the  tenderest  voice  as : 
'Long  live  God !  .  .  .  Let  us  toil  without  rest  to  His  honor 
and  glory,  and  if  there  is  not  enough  wood  for  the  work,  we 
will  pull  down  our  houses  to  supply  it.' 

"While  the  work  of  constructing  the  amphitheatre  pro- 
ceeded, the  enlisting  of  the  company  of  soldiers  of  the  Faith 
was  going  on ;  these  soldiers  were  recruited  from  among 
mechanics,  and  enlisted  only  for  these  occasions,  when  they 
served  under  the  Inquisitor-General,  and  only  while  the  auto 
festivities  lasted.  The  company  consisted  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty  men;  Francisco  Saludo  was  appointed  captain,  and  Juan 
Dominguez  ensign,  the  military  drill  being  entrusted  to  Pedro 
de  Castro,  adjutant  to  the  quartermaster-general  of  Spain. 
The  company  had  its  guardroom  in  the  house  of  the  royal 
tribunal,  Inquisition  Street. 

"The  work  was  completed  on  the  28th  day  of  June,  and 
was  by  the  grand  master  delivered  to  the  town  commission- 
ers, who  found  it  right  and  conformable  to  law,  and  who  in 
turn  delivered  it  to  the  commissioners  of  the  Inquisition,  who 
also  were  satisfied. 

"On  the  evening  of  the  said  day  of  June  28th,  the  company 
of  soldiers  of  the  Faith  marched  in  orderly  fashion  as  far  as 
the  Puerta  de  Alcala  (Alcala  Gate).  There  the  mayor,  mar- 
quis of  Ugena,  had  several  bundles  of  dried  wood  ready; 
each  soldier  taking  one,  and  shouldering  it,  marched  back  to 
the  small  square  of  Palacio,  where  they  halted.  The  captain, 
taking  up  a  small  bundle,  suitably  adorned  with  ribbons  and 
tinsel,  placed  it  on  his  buckler;  and  going  up  to  His  Majesty's 
room,  handed  it  to  the  Duke  of  Pastrana,  for  presentation  to 
his  sovereign,  who  taking  it  in  his  own  hand  showed  it  to 
the  queen,  tendering  it  back  to  the  Duke,  who  in  turn  handed 


274  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

it  to  the  captain,  saying  that  the  king  commanded  him  to  take 
it  in  his  name,  and  to  see  that  it  was  the  first  to  be  thrown 
on  the  blaze.  The  captain  descended  with  the  bundle  of  wood, 
as  he  had  ascended,  and  facing  his  troop  he  placed  it  in  his 
bungalow;  the  soldiers  imitating  him,  hung  their  bundles  on 
their  lances  and  muskets  and  walked  to  the  brazier,  keeping 
separate  the  king's  bundle  in  order  to  do  as  he  had  ordered; 
and  leaving  a  sufficient  guard  behind  to  take  care  of  it,  they 
returned  to  their  barracks. 

"In  order  to  enjoy  the  sight  of  the  performance,  and  par- 
ticipate in  the  graces,  privileges,  and  indulgences  granted  by 
many  chief  Pontiffs  to  the  brotherhood  of  St.  Peter  the  Mar- 
tyr, many  were  the  persons  of  all  ranks  and  conditions  who 
in  those  days  joined  the  Holy  Office. 

"At  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  June  29th,  all  parties 
qualified,  including  notaries,  councilors,  familiars,  and  other 
ministers  of  the  Holy  Office  were  convoked  in  the  church  of 
the  college  of  Dna.  Maria  de  Aragon,  in  whose  principal 
chapel  were  to  be  found  the  green  and  the  white  crosses, 
surrounded  with  lights  and  ornaments.  The  procession  started 
at  five  o'clock,  headed  by  Francisco  Portero  de  Vargas,  Mayor 
of  Madrid;  Andres  Valenzuela,  knight  of  Calatrava,  and 
other  gentlemen,  all  of  them  of  the  Holy  Office. 

"The  soldiers  of  the  Faith  were  lined  up  in  the  square,  and 
on  the  crosses  coming  out  of  the  church,  the  ensign  saluted 
by  a  waving  of  the  flag,  and  the  troop  fired  a  salvo  of 
musketry.  The  standard  of  the  Faith  was  brought  out  by 
the  Duke  of  Medinaceli ;  its  tassels  were  carried  by  the 
Marquis  of  Cogollado,  the  first-born  of  His  Eminence,  and 
Melchior  de  Guzman,  also  first-born  of  the  Marquis  of  Vil- 
lamanriqua.  The  standard  was  of  double  taffeta,  crimson  in 
color,  with  silver  laces  and  gold  tassels  and  cords,  and  bore 
on  it,  beautifully  worked,  the  royal  arms  and  those  of  the 
Inquisition,  made  expressly  for  this  occasion,  and  paid  for 
by  the  Duke,  who  later  presented  it  to  the  Brotherhood  of 
St.  Peter  the  Martyr.  After  the  crosses  followed  the  reli- 
gious communities,  to  wit:  Capuchins,  Recollects,  Trinita- 
rians, Carmelites,  St.  Augustine,  St.  Francis  and  St.  Domingo. 

"Then  the  white  cross  was  brought  out  accompanied  by  the 
ministers,  familiars,  and  notaries,  with  their  badges  of  of- 
fice on  their  breast,  and  carrying  white  wax  candles  with  the 
insignia  of  St.  Peter  the  Martyr  in  their  hands,  the  eldest 
steward  of  the  congregation  carrying  the  cross. 

"The  green  cross,  which  was  covered  by  a  black  veil,  was 
carried  alternately  by  the  provincial  Father  of  the  Sacred 
Order  of  Preachers  of  the  province  of  Spain,  and  the  most 
reverend   Prior   of   Atocha,   assisted   by   six   other   religious 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  275 

fathers.  Ahead  of  them  marched  the  musicians  of  the  royal 
chapel  singing  the  psalm  of  Miserere. 

"By  order  of  Don  Antonio  Zembrano,  eldest  inquisitor  of 
the  royal  court,  assisted  by  Secretary  Fernando  Alvarez 
Valdes,  the  different  classes  of  prisoners  were  separated  and 
lodged  in  special  compartments,  excepting  those  condemned  to 
be  handed  over  to  the  criminal  courts,  who  remained  in  their 
respective  cells. 

"At  about  ten  o'clock  p.m.,  after  the  prisoners  had  been  pro- 
vided with  supper,  the  said  Zembrano  entered  to  notify  the 
prisoners  of  their  sentence  of  death,  which  read  as  follows : 
Brethren,  devout  and  learned  men  have  tried  your  cases  and 
found  your  crimes  so  great  and  so  wicked  that  as  a  punish- 
ment, and  example,  it  has  been  decided  that  you  must  die : 
you  are  warned  to  get  ready  and  be  reconciled  so  that  you 
may  die  in  a  becoming  manner;  I  leave  with  you  two  godly 
men. 

"Twenty-three  culprits  were  notified  of  the  sentence  of 
death ;  two  religious  men  and  two  familiars  were  allotted 
to  each,  and  these  kept  guard  throughout  the  night.  As  the 
plight  of  the  ones  was  so  bitter,  and  the  work  of  the  others  so 
painful,  the  commissioners  responsible  for  the  unforeseen  ex- 
penses supplied  abundant  provisions  of  chocolate,  biscuits, 
sweetmeats  and  wines  to  help  those  who  could  not  be  other- 
wise consoled. 

"The  Tribunal  sat  all  night  for  the  benefit  of  those  wishing 
their  services.  Two  women  condemned  to  be  handed  over  to 
the  criminal  court  asked  for  a  hearing;  the  Tribunal  with  its 
accustomed  piety,  granted  it  and  ordered  them  to  come  up. 
Having  heard  their  pleadings  the  execution  of  their  sentences 
was  suspended  for  the  time  being. 

"On  June  30th,  at  three  o'clock  in  the  morning,  the  prison- 
ers began  to  be  supplied  with  the  white  linen  used  on  such 
solemn  occasions,  and  by  five  o'clock  they  had  all  taken 
breakfast  and  were  ready  to  leave.  Two  sealed  papers  were 
handed  to  each  of  the  court  jailers,  Pedro  Santos  and  Jose 
del  Olmo.  One  contained  the  instructions  to  form  the  pro- 
cession, and  the  other  the  list  by  which  the  prisoners  were  to 
be  called,  and  have  the  sentence  read  to  them. 

"During  the  night  all  places  were  closed  along  the  route  to 
be  taken  by  the  procession  of  the  condemned,  and  platforms 
and  stands  were  erected  on  which  the  people  took  their  places 
in  great  numbers,  the  more  comfortably  to  see  it  pass.  The 
attendance  from  the  surrounding  towns  and  villages,  at- 
tracted by  the  report  of  the  novelty,  was  very  great. 

"The  soldiers  of  the  Faith  began  to  come  out  at  seven  in 
the  morning.  After  them  came  the  cross  of  St.  Martin's 
parish,   covered  by  a  black  veil   and  surrounded  by  twelve 


276  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

clergymen  in  surplices,  preceding  one  hundred  and  twenty 
culprits,  men  and  women,  each  having  two  religious  guards 
at  their  side. 

"Then  came  the  images  of  thirty-four  condemned  culprits, 
some  dead,  others  fugitives  from  the  criminal  courts.  Some 
of  those  carrying  the  images  wore  cuirasses,  and  others  had 
in  their  hands  small  urns  with  bones  of  the  condemned.  Only 
two  wore  the  convict  garments  of  the  Inquisition,  but  they 
all  carried  on  their  breast  placards  bearing  their  names  in 
large  letters. 

"Eleven  were  guilty  of  recantation  by  lying,  trickery,  super- 
stitition,  or  because  they  had  married  twice,  or  celebrated 
mass  without  being  priests,  and  other  similar  crimes.  Some 
carried  cone-hoods  and  others  ropes  around  their  necks,  with 
as  many  knots  as  the  lashes  they  were  to  receive,  and  all  car- 
ried extinguished  yellow  wax  candles  in  their  hands. 

"Fifty-four  were  reconciled  judaizants  with  convict  gar- 
ments half  crossed,  and  also  extinguished  candles. 

"Lastly  there  were  twenty-one  culprits  condemned  to  be 
handed  over  to  the  criminal  courts,  wearing  cone-hoods  and 
capes  of  flames.  Twelve  of  them  who  were  obstinate,  carried 
infernal  dragons  painted  to  represent  the  flames,  and  were 
handcuffed  and  gagged.  These  were  condemned  to  the  flames. 
The  procession  of  culprits  was  closed  by  Sebastian  Lara, 
head  constable  of  Toledo.  Then  came  the  Tribunal,  pre- 
ceding the  Brotherhood  of  St.  Peter  the  Martyr;  two  stew- 
ards from  these  carried  each  small  coffers  handsomely  lined 
and  locked,  one  of  which  contained  the  indictments,  and  the 
other  the  sentences,  of  the  accused. 

"The  town  of  Madrid,  with  all  its  officers  and  depend- 
ants, attended  the  function  in  a  body. 

"Next  followed  the  standard  of  the  Faith,  of  crimson 
damask,  with  the  arms  of  His  Majesty  and  those  of  the 
Holy  Office  embroidered  upon  it,  and  the  march  was  closed 
by  the  halberdiers  of  the  Marquis  Malpica,  himself  heading 
it  on  horseback. 

"The  procession  passed  in  front  of  the  house  of  the  inquisi- 
torial guard,  Encarnacion  Street,  Canos  del  Peral  (Peral 
Conduits),  the  small  square  of  Santa  Catarina  de  los  Donados 
(St.  Catherine  of  the  lay  brothers  and  sisters),  the  small 
Descalzas  (barefeet)  Square,  St.  Martin  Street  to  St.  Gines; 
Bordadores  (embroiderers)  Street,  Calle  Mayor  (principal 
street),  and  Boteros  to  the  main  square,  where  the  king  and 
queen  were  already  occupying  the  canopied  throne  on  their 
balcony,  while  in  stands  were  the  councilors,  tribunals,  cor- 
porations, grandees,  titles,  and  other  invited  noted  persons. 

"Quiet  was  restored  after  a  momentary  disorder,  the_  cul- 
prits were  led  by  the  soldiers  of  the  Faith  and  the  familiars 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  277 

to  their  respective  places,  the  statues  were  arranged  on  ele- 
vated points  on  the  platform  to  enable  everyone  to  see  them. 
The  general  public  and  the  actors  occupied  their  respective 
places  amidst  a  profound  and  religious  silence,  as  the  solemn 
act  was  commenced  with  His  Majesty's  assent. 

'The  Inquisitor-General,  wearing  the  pontifical  robes  and 
assisted  by  the  corresponding  clergymen,  ascended  the  box 
of  the  king  and  queen  to  take  their  oaths,  namely:  that  they 
would  defend  the  Rowan  Catholic  Apostolic  religion,  that 
they  would  not  embarrass  the  clergy  nor  dispute  the  rights  of 
the  Holy  Office,  and  that  they  zvould  help  zvith  all  their 
strength  and  pozverful  resources,  to  extirpate  heresy,  to  pun- 
ish its  authors  and  propagators,  and  never  at  any  time  permit 
mixture  of  zvorships,  nor  rites  foreign  to  the  true  and  indis- 
putable dogmas  of  the  Catholic  belief. 

"The  king  very  readily  and  without  reserve  of  any  kind 
gave  the  oath  that  so  well  agreed  with  his  own  pious  inclina- 
tions. 

"Descending  from  His  Majesty's  balcony,  the  Inquisitor- 
General,  aided  by  his  assistants  and  familiars,  again  approached 
the  altar  where  everything  was  already  prepared  for  the  sol- 
emn high  mass  that  he  had  to  celebrate,  dressed  in  pontifical 
attire,  as  he  was  then.  He  left  the  Gospel  book  on  the  side 
table  near  the  altar  and  the  august  sacrifice  was  commenced : 
it  was  the  mass  of  St.  Paul's  conversion,  and  it  was  cele- 
brated with  as  much  devotion  as  it  was  heard. 

"When  the  hour  for  the  sermon  arrived,  there  ascended  to 
the  pulpit  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  pronounce  it,  the  Reverend 
Father  Thomas  Navarro,  of  the  Order  of  Preachers. 

"The  sermon,  which  had  for  text  the  verse  of  the  psalm : 
Ex  surge,  Domine,  judica  causam  tuam  (Arise,  Lord,  and  judge 
thy  cause),  was  a  brilliant  apology  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Apos- 
tolic Christian  religion,  the  only  true  one,  praising  its  beau- 
ties, its  advantages,  and  the  happiness  that  its  observance  pro- 
vides ;  and  a  condemnation  of  the  idolatries,  heresies,  sects, 
and  errors,  of  all  times  and  of  all  peoples,  which  he  exam- 
ined with  rare  erudition  and  knowledge;  and  he  wound  up 
by  exhorting  the  sovereign  there  present,  upon  the  necessity 
of  not  permitting  his  faithful  followers  to  have  any  kind  of 
commerce  or  intercourse  with  heretics,  not  even  as  a  measure 
of  public  utility,  so  as  to  avoid  the  great  evils  and  troubles 
that  have  overcome  other  kingdoms,  where  truth  and  error 
are  allowed  to  coexist. 

"At  the  conclusion  of  the  sermon  the  very  illustrious  In- 
quisitor-General rang  the  hand-bell  as  a  signal  to  begin  read- 
ing the  cases  and  sentences  of  the  accused,  which  took  place 
in  the  following  manner : 

"On  the  two  desks  facing  the  cages   for  the  culprits,  the 


278  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

stewards  of  St.  Peter  the  Martyr  placed  the  two  small  cof- 
fers containing  the  cases  and  the  sentences;  two  notaries 
from  the  Tribunal  came  up  to  read  them  and  to  make  the 
sentences  known,  and  another  one  went  on  calling  the  con- 
demned from  the  list  given  to  him  by  Jose  del  Olmo.  This 
last,  and  Pedro  Santos,  as  jailer  of  the  Holy  Office,  were  there 
to  bring  and  take  away  the  convicts.  On  hearing  the  con- 
demned person's  name  called  the  jailers  went  to  look  for  him 
on  the  scaffolding  where  they  all  were,  and,  making  him  get 
on  the  platform  he  was  placed  in  one  of  the  cages,  and  after 
reading  to  him  the  case  and  the  sentence,  he  was  taken  out 
and  returned  to  his  place  to  make  room  for  a  new  one.  The 
number  was  very  large,  and  in  order  to  save  time,  one  notary 
read  the  case  and  another  the  sentence.  The  convicts  them- 
selves had  lists  in  duplicate  and  it  was  arranged  that  before 
having  done  with  one,  they  had  the  next  ready  and  thus  it 
was  possible  to  finish  in  a  shorter  time  than  it  could  have 
been  feasible  by  a  slower  process. 

'The  first  man  to  come  out  in  public  was  Manuel  Diaz,  a 
native  of  the  island  of  Sardinia,  his  offence  being  judaization. 
He  appeared  in  the  cage  with  his  yellow  cape  and  St.  An- 
drew's cross. 

"After  him,  those  indicted  for  judaization  were  dispatched 
in  the  briefest  time  possible,  being  condemned  according  to 
their  crime  to  a  longer  or  a  shorter  term  of  imprisonment, 
to  perpetual  confinement,  deportation,  the  lash,  public  infamy, 
to  rowingthe  king's  galleys,  or  to  wear  the  garments  of  peni- 
tent convicts,  besides  the  confiscation  of  their  property  to 
meet  the  Tribunal's  expenses. 

"Then  came  the  turn  of  those  condemned  to  be  dealt  with 
by  the  criminal  courts,  the  obstinate  and  impenitent,  both  in 
person  as  in  statue,  and  the  nineteen  condemned  to  die  by 
the  garrote  or  in  the  flames  were  also  properly  disposed  of ; 
because  although  they  were  twenty-one,  while  the  cases  were 
being  read,  a  man  and  a  woman  belonging  to  the  obstinate 
repented  and  wished  to  confess,  begging  through  the  religious 
man  that  ministered  to  them,  to  be  heard :  this  being  granted, 
they  were  taken  down  to  the  room  intended  for  the  purpose 
and  were  heard  by  the  commissioner  inquisitor,  who,  having 
found  cause  for  so  doing,  suspended  their  sentence,  sub  con- 
ditione  (conditionally)  upon  its  being  again  examined  into 
as  to  its  merits.  Ordering  the  convict  garments  to  be  removed 
from  them,  the  commissioners  returned  again  to  the  scaffold- 
ing without  these  convicts  amid  the  acclamations  of  the  peo- 
ple who  rejoiced  over  acts  of  justice,  and  applauded  any  dis- 
play of  clemency. 

"Having  finished  the  reading  of  the  case  and  sentence,  to 
each  convict,  the  latter  returned  to  the  place  whence  he  had 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  279 

come ;  but  the  impcnitcnts  who  had  relapsed  into  error  were 
taken  down  to  the  place  intended  for  a  secret  cell,  where  or- 
dinary justice  already  awaited  them  to  carry  out  the  execu- 
tion of  the  sentence. 

"When  everyone  had  been  disposed  of,  the  commissioner  in- 
quisitor whose  duty  it  was  'relaxed'  them,  that  is  to  say,  de- 
livered them  over  to  the  sheriff  and  constaDles  to  take  them  to 
the  place  of  execution,  begging  of  them  to  show  the  convicts 
all  possible  mercy  while  carrying  out  the  terrible  ends  of 
justice. 

"Immediately  the  mournful  convoy  started  for  the  spot  where 
the  brazier  awaited,  taking  the  shortest  way  to  the  Fuencarral 
Gate.  One-third  of  the  company  of  soldiers  of  the  Faith 
walked  in  front ;  while  the  unhappy  convicts  surrounded  by 
the  constables,  each  accompanied  by  two  godly  men,  followed 
them.  The  convicts  were  encouraged  to  die  penitent,  but 
without  showing  the  least  repentance  the  obstinate  ones  walked 
to  the  scaffold  with  altered  features,  high  color  and  flashing 
looks,  that  appeared  to  throw  out  fire,  sure  signs  of  their 
eternal  damnation,  in  great  contrast  with  the  meekness  and 
repose  of  the  reconciled  ones,  who  went  quickly  forth  to 
satisfy  the  public  vengeance.  The  procession  was  closed  by 
Don  Fernando  Alvarez  Valdes,  Secretary  to  the  Tribunal, 
who  had  to  testify  to  the  execution  of  the  sentences.  A  nu- 
merous crowd  followed  the  convicts,  moved  as  usual  by  curi- 
osity to  witness  that  spectacle. 

"In  good  time  the  Tribunal  had  called  upon  ordinary  jus- 
tice to  have  ready  twenty  stakes,  and  pillows,  to  apply  the 
garrote,  and  a  sufficient  number  of  ministers  and  execution- 
ers to  promptly  perform  that  fatal  duty;  and  justice  ful- 
filled the  order  with  so  much  haste  that  when  the  procession 
of  convicts  reached  the  burning  place  the  twenty  stakes  called 
for  were  already  in  position. 

"Bound  to  them,  and  with  the  loops  around  their  necks, 
those  who  were  condemned  to  that  penalty  were  suffocated, 
while  the  obstinate  were  set  on  fire  and  consumed  to  death, 
giving  out  visible  signs  of  horror  and  despair. 

"On  lighting  the  bonfire,  the  bundle  of  wood  that  the  cap- 
tain and  soldiers  of  the  Faith  had  offered  to  His  Majesty, 
and  which  the  latter  had  ordered  him  to  take  in  his  name,  was 
solemnly  thrown  into  it. 

"When  the  executions  were  concluded,  the  bodies  of  the 
garroted  were  thrown  into  the  flames  to  be  consumed,  but  this 
operation  was  not  over  until  nine  o'clock  the  following  morn- 
ing. 

"Meanwhile,  the  reading  of  cases  and  sentences  continued 
at  the  Plaza  Mayor,  and  when  that  was  over  the  Very  Illus- 
trious Inquisitor-General  proceeded  in  person  to  receive  of  the 


280  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

convicts  and  now  repentant  practitioners  of  Judaism,  the 
abjuration  of  their  errors,  admitting  them  once  more  within 
the  fold  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

"Abjuration  takes  place  in  three  ways:  de  levi,  de  ve- 
hemently and  in  forma.  The  first  is  where  against  the  ac- 
cused there  are  only  some  well-founded  indications  that  he 
belongs  to  some  judaical  or  Mohammedan  sect,  and  that  he 
observes  their  rites.  The  abjuration  de  vehementi  is  done 
when  there  exist  against  the  party  proved  charges  implying 
guilt,  and  the  abjuration  in  forma  is  when  the  accused  is 
fully  convicted  of  error  or  heretical  apostasy  but  without 
sufficient  cause  to  apply  the  death  penalty,  at  least  in  what 
concerns  crimes  against  the  faith. 

"When  the  abjurations  were  finished,  it  was  already  late 
into  the  night,  for  which  reason  the  square  was  illuminated, 
especially  the  royal  balcony,  with  a  multitude  of  large  wax 
tapers;  this  was  continued  till  they  had  burnt  out,  and  then 
the  musicians  of  the  royal  chapel  sang  a  Te  Deum,thus  end- 
ing that  solemn  function  at  nearly  nine  o'clock  at  night. 

"Such  was  the  conclusion  of  that  celebrated  day  of  tri- 
umph for  religion  and  of  horror  for  impiety,  a  day  in  which 
all  vied  with  one  another  in  Christian  humility  and  religious 
enthusiasm.  Even  His  Majesty  the  King,  zealous  defender 
of  the  Catholic  faith,  who  because  of  his  exalted  position,  is 
relieved  from  certain  particulars,  wished,  as  the  least  of  his 
vassals,  to  spend  the  day  in  the  complete  practice  of  virtue, 
and  remained  with  his  royal  family  in  the  balcony  from  eight 
o'clock  in  the  morning  until  nine  at  night,  without  partak- 
ing of  food  beyond  some  slight  refreshments  necessary  dur- 
ing summer. 

"The  very  illustrious  bishop  and  Inquisitor-General  was  so 
fatigued  by  that  day's  labor  that  he  did  not  even  want  to  take 
off  his  apostolic  vestments,  and  dressed  as  he  was,  his  famil- 
iars and  servants  took  him  home  in  his  magnificent  sedan 
chair,  made  of  crimson  velvet  with  beautiful  gold  ornaments, 
and  lighted  by  his  pages  with  numerous  white  wax  tapers. 

"On  their  Majesties'  rising  to  leave  everybody  did  the  same, 
and  in  a  short  time  the  square  was  emptied.  The  reconciled 
prisoners  were  taken  back  to  their  cells,  where  the  pious 
Tribunal  had  an  abundant  supper  awaiting  them.  The  green 
cross  was  taken  in  procession  to  St.  Thomas  College,  and 
there  it  remained  between  lights  until  the  following  day, 
when  it  was  solemnly  carried  to  the  Convent  of  Santo  Do- 
mingo, and  placed  against  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  church. 

"After  all  the  bodies  of  the  convicts  had  been  burnt,  the 
soldiers  of  the  Faith  removed  the  white  cross  from  its  ped- 
estal and  took  it  to  St.  Martin's  parish,  at  whose  gate  the 
community  was  waiting.     After  visiting  the  cemetery  where 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  28l 

a  responsory  for  the  souls  of  the  reconciled  dead  was  re- 
peated, the  white  cross  was  placed  in  the  sacristy  side  by  side 
with  the  one  existing  there,  and  whicii  had  been  used  in  the 
auto  of  1632. 

"On  Wednesday,  July  3d,  the  sentence  of  the  Tribunal 
was  carried  out  against  several  culprits,  who  had  been  con- 
demned to  the  lash,  or  to  public  degradation  (several  women 
among  them),  and  on  the  fourth,  there  were  taken  in  gal- 
leys to  the  home  of  correction  at  Toledo,  those  who  had  to 
suffer  the  penalty  of  temporary  or  perpetual  confinement, 
and  be  instructed  in  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine. 

"The  same  day  and  over  various  routes,  those  sentenced 
to  rowing  on  the  king's  galleys  and  to  banishment  from  the 
kingdom,  were  taken  to  their  respective  destinations. 

"The  object  for  which  the  company  of  the  soldiers  of  the 
Faith  had  been  called  being  now  fulfilled,  the  company  was 
disbanded,  each  one  of  its  members  receiving  the  gratuity 
that  the  Tribunal  used  to  provide  for  such  cases,  besides  giv- 
ing them,  through  the  very  illustrious  Inquisitor-General,  the 
episcopal  benediction." 

As  His  Eminence  Cardinal  Gibbons  can  see,  the  kings  of 
Spain,  notwithstanding  their  absolute  power  in  other  matters, 
notwithstanding  their  prerogative  over  lives  and  property, 
under  the  Inquisition  could  not  even  decide  for  themselves 
the  place  where  the  auto  da  fe  is  to  be  celebrated.  It  is 
the  pontifical  Tribunal  that  resolves  this.  The  first  cry  is 
not  sounded  before  the  royal  palace,  but  before  the  house 
containing  the  Pope's  delegate.  Finally,  I  would  venture  to 
call  Your  Eminence's  attention  to  the  oath  demanded  from 
the  king  not  to  interfere,  nor  to  restrain  in  any  way  what- 
ever the  jurisdiction  of  said  Tribunal.  Would  royal  func- 
tionaries and  dependents  on  royal  favor,  venture  to  ask  for 
such  an  oath?  Anyone  who  cannot  see  in  all  this  the  Rom- 
anist character  pure  and  exclusive,  might  as  well  deny  the 
existence  of  the  sun  in  full  daylight. 

The  words  of  such  historians  as  Ranke  and  Hefele  can  be 
and  must  be  understood  only  as  applying  to  the  intervention 
exercised  by  princes  regarding  the  adjudication  of  property 
seized  by  said  Tribunal,  but  anyone  confusing  one  question 
with  another,  and  believing  that  said  Tribunal  is  a  royal  one, 
would  as  soon  take  bishops  and  curates  for  civil  ministers, 
since  they  are  in  the  pay  of  the  government,  and  the  latter 
appoints  its  controllers  to  make  the  payments.  By  that  way 
of  reasoning  all  public  governments  would  soon  be  able  to 
demonstrate  that  the  Pope  to  the  last  curate,  are  mere  civil 
functionaries  rather  than  ecclesiastics. 

Concerning    the    other    words    that    Your    Eminence    says 


282  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 


emanate  from  King  Ferdinand,  I  cannot  get  over  my  aston- 
ishment at  so  enlightened  an  authority  as  Your  Eminence 
venturing  to  make  the  statement.  If  I  were  to  follow  your 
example  I  could  demonstrate  that  the  Pope  was  the  subject 
and  slave  of  the  German  Empire.  Is  Your  Eminence  perhaps 
unaware  that  during  many  years  the  emperors  exacted  that 
the  election  of  the  Popes,  to  be  legitimate,  should  first  be 
approved  by  them?  Does  Your  Eminence  think  that  because 
a  prince  believes  and  says  that  certain  rights  are  his,  he  can 
at  once  rest^ assured  that  it  is  so  and  that  Rome  agrees  to  it? 
Fine  reasoning,  indeed,  is  Your  Eminence's.  Pity  the  Roman 
Church  if  that  were  so.  I  cannot  get  over  my  astonishment 
at  such  method  of  discussing,  nor  at  Cardinals  of  the  Holy 
Romanism  having  recourse  to  arguments  so  contradictory. 
No,  Your  Eminence,  a  thousand  times,  no.  That  kings  may 
or  may  not  claim  supposed  rights  does  not  prove  in  any 
manner  that  such  rights  are  royal,  or  that  Romanism  believes 
them  to  be  so.  Your  Eminence  might  prove  it,  not  by  copy- 
ing words  from  kings,  but  words  and  writings  from  the 
Popes.  Does  your  Eminence  know  of  any  bull,  encyclical, 
decree,  etc.,  by  virtue  of  which  the  Pontiffs  declare  that  they 
cede  one  atom  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  Tribunal?  I  be- 
lieve I  know  something  about  the  sanguinary  and  dark  his- 
tory of  said  Tribunal,  and  up  to  the  present  I  have  found 
only  excommunications,  and  threats  of  excommunication, 
against  princes  who  forbade,  or  restrained,  or  did  not  help 
the  said  Romanist  Tribunal,  but  I  have  found  absolutely  noth- 
ing by  virtue  of  which  they  renounce,  even  now,  that  tre- 
mendously inhuman  and  fatal  power.  And  as  there  is  noth- 
ing I  know  of  to  the  contrary,  I  should  be  wanting  in  truth, 
patriotism  and  loyalty,  if  I  did  not  proclaim  once  more  that 
said  Tribunal  was  not  strictly  Spanish,  but  Romanist;  not 
monarchical,  but  pontifical. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

JUSTIFICATION,   ITS  CAUSES  AND  CONSEQUENCES. 

THE  subject  of  justification  leads  us  into  one  of 
the  most  abstruse  and  intricate  theological  ques- 
tions. It  not  only  stands  as  a  dividing  barrier  be- 
tween Protestants  and  Romanists,  but  it  is  also  the 
cause  of  discord  among  the  Protestants  as  well  as 
among  Catholics  themselves.  And  the  most  astound- 
ing thing  in  this  burning  dispute  is,  that  when  rightly 
considered,  the  opinions  regarding  it  held  by  both 
these  parties  are  identical. 

The  Romanist  in  speaking  of  redemption  and  all 
that  it  implies,  and  in  speaking  of  grace  and  all  its 
effects,  proclaims  practically  the  same  doctrine,  which 
scandalizes  him  so  much  when  promulgated  by  the 
Protestant.  Let  us  examine  it.  Roman  theology 
says,  that  the  redemption  of  Christ  was  single,  uni- 
versal, most  abundant  and  all-sufficient.1  They  right- 
ly say,  that  one  single  act,  one  single  tear  of  Christ, 
the  most  insignificant  drop  of  His  blood  shed  for 
us,  contains  efficacy  sufficient  to  save  not  only  the 
rational  beings  who  inhabit  this  planet,  but  also  thou- 
sands and  millions  of  worlds  that  might  be  inhabited 
like  ours,  and  which  might  even  be  worse  than  ours.2 

1  St.   Thomas,   Billuart,   Casanovas,   Hurter :    De   Deo   Re- 
dcmptore. 

2  The    same   authors   mentioned,    and    add    Cardinal    Vives, 
Bertier :    Compendio  de  Teologia,  same  head. 

(283) 


284  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

They  all  hold  that  the  redemption  considered  by  itself 
is  single,  universal,  most  abundant,  and  all-sufficient, 
hence  Romanism  and  the  great  majority  of  the  Re- 
formist congregations  believe  the  same  thing  as  re- 
gards the  efficacy  and  abundance  of  the  redemption.3 
Let  us  proceed  further.  Ask  a  Romanist  if  a  man 
can  arrive  at  justification  by  himself,  by  his  own 
works  and  merits.  By  no  means,  they  unanimously 
answer.4  Justification,  being  a  supernatural  gift, 
comes  from  heaven,  and  is  granted  by  Christ.  For 
Romanism,  man  with  all  his  works  and  merits  is  a 
complete  nonentity,  not  meriting  grace,  nor  able  to 
obtain  it.5  It  is  God  who  must  prepare  him  for  it, 
who  must  actually  aid  him,  and  who  only  can  justify 
and  sanctify  him.  Pelagianism  was  condemned  as  a 
heresy,  not  only  because  it  denied,  strictly  speaking, 
original  sin,  but  because  it  held  that  man  could  rise 
to  the  supernatural  order  of  justification  and  sancti- 
fication  without  the  aid  of  inner  grace.  Semipelagian- 
ism  was  also  condemned  as  being  heretical,  because  it 
demanded  only  preparatory  or  initial  grace,  but  not 
continuous  or  habitual  grace.6  For  Romanism,  man 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  supernatural  grace 
of  justification  as  a  corpse  stands  in  relation  to  the 
vital  operations.     What  can  a  corpse  do  in  the  vital 

3  Read  Methodist  Armor:  On  the  Redemption.  All  the 
"Protestants   (except  the  Calvinists)   support  the  same  thesis. 

4  The  same  Catholic  authors  above  mentioned :  Head,  De  la 
Gracia.  Add  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe,  head, 
Gracia. 

5  Same  Catholic  authors  mentioned :  Heads,  Gracia,  and 
Merito. 

6  Read  Baronio,  Rohrbacher  and  Rivas :  On  Pelagianism 
and  Semipelagianism. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  285 

human  order?  Nothing.  So  with  man,  who,  while 
living  under  natural  laws,  is  as  powerless  as  a  corpse 
to  raise  himself  to  the  supernatural  order  of  grace. 
Man,  instead  of  being  the  coactor  with  grace,  is 
merely  as  a  receptacle  in  which  grace  works  the  won- 
ders of  justification.  This  being  a  most  grave  ques- 
tion, it  needs  to  be  elucidated  with  proofs  and  ex- 
amples. 

Ask  a  Roman:  What  sanctifies  the  penitent?  The 
fasting,  disciplining,  sackcloth,  prayers,  and  so  forth, 
or  the  grace  that  moved,  and  by  virtue  of  which 
movement  he  conceived  the  thought  of  fasting,  and 
continuing  to  fast,  the  thought  of  disciplining  him- 
self, and  thus  continued  to  discipline  himself,  and  so 
forth  ? 7  You  will  see  that  they  all  answer  without 
hesitation:  grace,  and  not  the  fasting  nor  the  dis- 
cipline, and  so  forth ;  and  in  such  a  way,  that  if  grace 
should  depart  from  those  exercises,  everything  would 
be  fruitless  and  entirely  useless.8  Let  us  examine 
this  question  still  more  closely,  and  we  shall  find  the 
only  center  for  union,  where  both  systems  may  con- 
verge and  be  coordinated. 

In  justification  and  its  derivations  there  appear,  so 
to  speak,  two  subjects,  and  also  two  classes  of  opera- 
tions: the  former  consisting  of  Christ,  justifying, 
sanctifying  and  glorifying,  and  man  receiving  in  him- 
self the  justification,  sanctification,  and  glorification ; 
the  latter  consisting  of  the  acts  of  grace,  divine  and 
supernatural  and  the  acts  of  man,  purely  human  and 

7  P.  Fernandez,  Schouppe,  Perrone :  Heads,  Merit  and 
Grace. 

8  Elbel,  Esporer,  Gury :    On  Mortal  Sin. 


286  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

natural.  To  which  of  these  two  agents,  and  to  which 
quality  of  operations,  must  be  ascribed  justification, 
sanctification  and  glorification?  Solely  to  Christ  and 
to  His  grace.  To  assert  the  contrary  would  be  a 
philosophical  absurdity,  and  a  theological  error,  not 
only  according  to  the  Protestant  doctrine,  but  also  ac- 
cording to  the  Catholic  doctrine.  Romanism  clearly 
and  emphatically  proclaims  two  tenets :  justification 
is  a  supernatural  gift  not  only  quoad  modum,  as  they 
teach,9  but  also  quoad  substantiam,  and  therefore  jus- 
tification and  its  derivatives  are  operations  transcend- 
ing human  nature.  But  to  suppose,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  justification,  sanctification  and  glorification  are 
of  a  distinct  order  and  at  the  same  time  superior  to 
nature,  and  then  to  assert  that  among  these  orders 
(supernatural  and  natural)  there  is  proportion  and 
correlativity,  would  be  a  philosophical  absurdity.  If 
the  first  is  superior  and  transcendent,  the  second  could 
never  influence,  augment  or  diminish  the  amplitude  or 
intensity  of  the  latter.10  When  we  speak  of  coopera- 
tion between  two  agents,  or  two  orders  of  things,  we 
must  have  in  the  first  place,  proportion  and  correl- 
ativity between  them ;  and  here  we  have  neither : 
For  on  one  side  there  is  the  infinite,  Christ,  and  on 
the  other,  the  finite,  the  creature;  on  the  one  side 
there  is  something  supernatural,  justification,  and  in 
the  other,  something  natural,  the  work  of  man. 

But  above  all,   it  is   a  theological   error.     If   man 

9Bertier:    On  Grace. 

10  Perrone :     On   the   Natural  and   Supernatural.      Jaugey : 
Head,  Supernatural  Order. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  287 

could  bring  it  about,  by  his  works,  that  justification 
were  increased,  then  we  could  assert  both  that  grace 
is  not  a  free  gift — which  is  heretical — and  that  grace 
does  not  proceed  solely  and  exclusively  from  Christ, 
which  is  also  heresy.  We  could  also  assert  that  some 
grace  is  obtained  mediately,  or  through  the  coopera- 
tion of  man,  an  assertion  that  would  involve  the  de- 
struction of  the  fundamental  principles  of  Roman 
theology.11  Moreover,  if  we  did  not  conceive  faith 
to  be  the  only  basis  of  our  justification,  then  we  should 
fall  into  the  Romanist  absurdity.  Faith,  they  say,  is  a 
divine  and  supernatural  gift ; 12  but  without  works,  it 
is  formless  and  dead.  They  cannot  deny  that  it  is 
a  supernatural  and-  divine  gift  without  falling  into 
contradiction  and  heresy ;  and  to  suppose  that  it  is 
formless  and  dead,  is  to  assert  that  there  are  super- 
natural gifts  which  are  dead  gifts,  and  a  supernatural 
grace  which  is  formless  grace.  Let  us  examine  this 
concept  closely,  for  it  demonstrates  better  than  any 
other  argument,  the  absurdity  of  the  Romanist  posi- 
tion. 

Every  supernatural  gift  elevates  man  and  brings 
him  nearer  to  God ; 13  just  as  grievous  sin  lowers  and 
removes  him  further  from  God.  We  speak  according 
to  Romanism.  Very  well,  then.  If  faith  is  a  super- 
natural gift,  elevating  man  and  bringing  him  nearer 

11  Read  any  of  the  authors  mentioned  under  head,  Grace. 
They  all  affirm  that  grace  is  a  free  gift,  which  can  only  be 
granted  by  Christ. 

12  Jaugey:  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe.  Canon  of  the 
Vatican  Council:  De  Fide.  Any  author  of  the  above  men- 
tioned, speaking  on  Faith. 

13  Perrone,  Hurter :  On  Faith.  Add  any  of  the  mentioned 
authors  when  they  speak  on  Faith. 

20 


288  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

to  God,  and  if,  as  they  suppose,  faith  could  be  sin 
without  works,  then  we  have  the  proposition,  that  faith 
elevates  and  does  not  elevate,  that  it  brings  nearer 
to  God  and  does  not  bring  nearer  to  God.  And 
further,  that  between  God  elevating  man  and  bring- 
ing him  nearer  to  Himself,  and  man  not  cooperating 
with  works,  man  would  have  greater  power  to  sep- 
arate himself  from  God,  than  God  would  have  to  draw 
man  nearer  to  Himself.  In  order  to  understand  the 
force  of  this  argument  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  we 
suppose  man  to  be  associated  with  the  divine  help, 
since  we  also  suppose  he  is  believing  in  and  assenting 
to  faith.  Similarly  we  should  have  this  monstrosity 
in  the  Roman  doctrine :  God  communicating  with  man 
by  means  of  supernatural  faith,  and  man  separated 
completely  from  God,  since  we  suppose  him  to  be 
in  a  state  of  grave  sin ;  God  conceding  the  majority 
of  his  virtues,  and  man  receiving  this  virtue,  and  man 
nevertheless,  as  we  suppose  him  to  be  in  a  state  of 
grave  sin,  incapable  of  receiving  either  grace  or  any 
other  divine  gift.14  Moreover,  if  we  examine  the  num- 
ber of  Biblical  passages  bearing  on  this  point,  we  shall 
see  that  there  is  hardly  any  other  truth  which  the 
Bible  inculcates  more  often  than  this :  that  faith  is  suf- 
ficient for  justification.  "Whosoever  liveth  and  believ- 
eth  in  me  shall  never  die."  "This  is  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me,  that  everyone  which  seeth  the  Son,  and 
believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life."  "This  is 
life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."     "He 

14  Read  and  study  the  above-mentioned  authors  under  head, 
Faith  and  Mortal  Sin,  especially  Cardinal  Vives. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  289 

that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  15  It  may  be  said 
that  there  is  no  truth  more  frequently  inculcated  in  the 
Gospel,  than  that  faith  justifies  and  saves.  Let  us 
hear  what  St.  Paul  says,  Romans  iv.  1-16: 

"What  shall  we  say  then  that  Abraham  our  father, 
as  pertaining  to  flesh,  hath  found? 

"For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory;  but  not  before  God. 

"For  what  saith  the  scripture?  Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness. 

"Now  to  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward  not  reck- 
oned of  grace,  but  of  debt. 

"But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him 
that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for 
righteousness. 

"Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of 
the  man,  unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness 
without  works, 

"Saying,  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  for- 
given, and  whose  sins  are  covered. 

"Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not 
impute  sin. 

"Cometh  this  blessedness  then  upon  the  circumci- 
sion only,  or  upon  the  uncircumcision  also?  for  we  say 
that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteous- 
ness. 

"How  was  it  then  reckoned?  when  he  was  in  cir- 
cumcision, or  in  uncircumcision?  Not  in  circumci- 
sion but  in  uncircumcision. 

1BJohn  xi.  25,  26;  vi.  35,  40;  xvii.  3.  I  John  v.  10-13. 
Mark  xvi.  16.    Acts  xvi.  31,  32. 


29O  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

"And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet 
being  uncircumcised :  that  he  might  be  the  father  of 
all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised ; 
that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them  also: 

"And  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are 
not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in 
the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  whicli 
he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised. 

"For  the  promise,  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the 
world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  through 
the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith. 

"For  if  they  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is 
made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect : 

"Because  the  law  worketh  wrath :  for  where  no  law 
is,  there  is  no  transgression. 

"Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace ; 
to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed ; 
not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also 
which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham;  who  is  the  father 
of  us  all." 

Romans  iii.  27,  28:  "Where  is  boasting  then? 
It  is  excluded.  By  what  law?  of  works?  Nay:  but 
by  the  law  of  faith." 

"Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law." 

Romans  xi.  6:  "And  if  by  grace,  then  is  it  no 
more  of  works:  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace. 
But  if  it  be  of  works,  then  is  it  no  more  grace :  other- 
wise work  is  no  more  work." 

We  might  cite  many  other  passages  to  the  same 
effect,  but  these  are  more  than  sufficient  to  prove  that 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  29I 

according  to  the  theology  of  the  Bible  faith  justifies 
and  saves,  without  the  work  of  man. 

But  the  differences  appear  still  more  marked  in 
practice.  Here  the  Romanists  exclaim,  scandalized : 
The  Protestant  doctrine  is  demoralizing.16  To  pro- 
claim that  works  are  not  necessary  for  justification, 
is  the  same  as  to  proclaim  the  glorification  of  vice; 
it  is  to  place  the  evildoer  alongside  of  the  saint.  And 
what  especially  excites  the  Romanist,  is  the  words  at- 
tributed to  Luther : 17  Pecca  fortitcr  et  crede  fortius 
(Sin  grievously  and  believe  more  firmly).  Here  the 
Romanists  close  their  chaste  ears,  and  indignantly 
heap  terrible  imprecations  upon  the  demoralizing  Re- 
formist doctrine. 

If  we  were  a  Protestant  we  should  reply  as  fol- 
lows v-  This  doctrine  is  not  ours,  it  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Gospels,  of  St.  Paul.18  The  Evangelists,  and  not 
we,  proclaim  these  things;  they  are  the  ones  who 
teach  that  faith  justifies,  that  works  do  not  justify; 
that  faith  saves,  that  works  do  not  save.  We  merely 
echo  their  teaching;  we  are  the  echo  of  their  divine 
voice,  and  if  you  call  us  demoralizing  and  subversive, 
you  apply  these  terms  to  those  from  whom  we  learned, 
to  the  Book  that  taught  us.  You  even  call  Christ 
Himself  subversive;  you  call  St.  Paul  a  demoralizer; 
therefore  you  are  heretics  and  blasphemers,  accord- 
ing to  your  own  Roman  doctrine. 

But  as  we  are  not  yet  a  Protestant,  we  will  answer 
according  to  the  scholastic  theology,  which  is  the  of- 

16  Bertier  :    On  Justification. 

17  Perrone,  Hurter,  P.  Fernandez :    On  Justification. 

18  Read  the  biblical  passages  cited  in  this  chapter. 


292  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

ficial  theology  for  Romanism.  Does  Luther's  doc- 
trine scandalize  you?  Do  you  believe  that  it  is  de- 
moralizing and  subversive,  not  to  affirm  the  necessity 
of  works  for  justification?  Then  permit  us  a  few 
slight  observations.  Who  are  your  favorite  masters 
in  questions  of  theology  and  of  grace?  St.  Augus- 
tine, you  answer,  who  is  therefore  called  the  "Eagle" 
among  the  holy  fathers ;  St.  Thomas,  who  is  called 
the  "Sun"  among  the  theologians.  They  are  our  prin- 
cipal doctors,  their  systems  are  our  systems,  which 
are  taught  by  preference  in  the  Gregorian  Univer- 
sity 19  under  the  immediate  supervision  of  the  Popes 
in  Rome ;  in  the  ecclesiastical  seminaries  under  the 
supervision  of  the  bishops,  and  everywhere  else.20 
And  what  do  these  eminent  doctors  teach  in  regard 
to  predestination?     Hear  them: 

They  say : 21  that  God,  from  eternity,  without  re- 
gard to  the  merits  of  anyone,  that  is  to  say,  with- 
out regard  to  their  works,  predestined  for  heaven 
those  whom  it  pleased  Him  so  to  predestinate,  with- 
out considering  in  any  way  either  their  merits  or 
their  works.  They  say  that  those  whom  God  pre- 
destined were  also  sanctified  by  Him,  and  not  by  their 
(man's)  works;  and  that  those  who  were  sanctified, 
by  God,  not  by  their  works,  were  also  glorified  by 
His  will  and  not  by  their  works  or  merits.22     He  did 

19  Consult  the  texts  of  the  Gregorian  University,  Rome. 

20  Please  examine :  The  texts  of  the  seminaries  and  re- 
ligious Orders  (exception  made  of  some  Jesuits),  on  such 
questions  as  Grace  and  Predestination.  The  teachings  of 
St.  Thomas  and  St.  Augustine  are  followed. 

21  Billuart :  Teologia  Dogmatica :  De  la  Predestinacion. 
Cardinal  Noris :    Same  head. 

22  Same  authors  mentioned  in  23,  under  the  same  head. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  293 

not  sanctify  those  that  He  did  not  predestine,  and 
those  that  are  not  sanctified  are  infallibly  condemned.23 
If  your  principal  doctors  teach  these  things,  if  this 
is  the  doctrine  most  general  in  your  Church,  why 
then  are  you  scandalized  by  Luther's  words?  Well 
may  the  words  of  the  Lord  be  applied  to  you :  Hypo- 
crite,24 you  see  the  mote  in  your  brother's  eye  and 
do  not  see  the  beam  in  your  own.  False  physician, 
you  who  undertake  to  cure  others,  cure  yourself  first. 
Are  your  own  theological  doctrines  perhaps  less  para- 
lyzing to  every  good  work?  May  not  some  one  say: 
"If  God  predestined  me,  He  did  it  without  consider- 
ing or  looking  at  my  good  works,  and  if  He  conceded 
to  me  such  a  grace,  then  I  may  rest  in  peace,  since  I 
shall  infallibly  receive  sanctification  and  glorification. 
And  on  the  contrary,  if  God  did  not  remember  me,  if 
I  had  no  part  in  the  sovereign  and  eternal  election, 
then  farewell  forever  all  hope."  It  avails  little  that 
they  say  to  me,  that  God  will  concede  to  me  sufficient 
grace,  if  they  assure  me  at  the  same  time  that  He 
will  irremissibly  and  infallibly  condemn  me.  Such 
reasoning  must  confound  the  wisest  mind,  render  in- 
sane the  most  saintly,  and  permit  the  greatest  evil- 
doer to  live  in  absolute  tranquillity.  While  Luther's 
phrase,  Pecca  fortitcr  et  crede  fortius,  may  be  under- 
stood in  the  most  radical  sense  we  think  that  it  must 
be  differently  interpreted,  as  we  shall  show  further 
on.  You  may  sin  on  condition  that  your  faith  be 
greater  than  your   sin ;  but  there  is  the   relation   of 

23  Billuart  and  Noris,  and  in  general  all  the  Augustinian  or 
Dominican  authors.  Read  especially  P.  Fernandez  for  the 
first  assertion,  and  for  the  second  one,  read  P.  Weis. 

24  Matt.  vii.  3,  4.     Luke  vi.  41,  42. 


294  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

comparative  and  superlative  between  fortiter  and  for- 
tius, while  the  Augustinian  and  Thomistic  systems 
hold  that  neither  the  good  nor  the  evil  is  of  any 
influence  in  God's  eternal  election.  When  God  pre- 
destines, His  choice  is  not  determined  by  good  works, 
nor  does  He  cast  aside  because  of  evil  deeds.25  He 
does  this  because  it  so  pleases  Him,  and  He  is  guided 
absolutely  by  his  free  volition.  This  view  places  the 
good  and  the  evil  on  the  same  plane,  and  ranges  the 
evildoer  alongside  of  the  saint.  We  beg  the  kind 
reader  to  look  over  some  of  the  authors  that  we  have 
cited  in  the  footnotes,  and  he  will  see  that  we  do 
not  exaggerate,  but  state  in  even  milder  terms  the 
Romanistic  doctrine  of  Predestination.  We  think, 
however,  that  Luther's  words  must  be  interpreted  dif- 
ferently. 

We  believe  that  the  interpretation  which  we  Cath- 
olics give  to  the  daring  words  of  St.  Augustine  is 
that  which  should  be  given  to  Luther's  words.  St. 
Augustine  says : 26  Ama  et  fac  quod  vellis  etiam 
peccatum  (Love  and  do  that  which  you  like,  even 
sin).  Can  these  words  be  interpreted  as  being  an 
invitation  to  sin?  Not  in  the  least.  The  saint  means 
to  say  that  the  love  of  God  is  the  principal  thing,  and 
it  is  so  important,  that  he  who  loves  would  find  it 
impossible  to  displease  God ;  then  if  it  were  possible 
that  he  could  sin  while  loving,  the  love  would  persist, 
while  the  sin  would  not  be  a  formal,  but  a  material 
offense.     The  saint  says  furthermore  in  another  pas- 

25  Consult  any  author  above  mentioned,  and  the  reader  will 
see  how  much  they  insist  on  this  question. 

26  Roman  Breviary  Lessons. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  295 

sage :  God  so  greatly  abhors  pride,  and  loves  humility 
so  much,  that  the  latter  pleases  Him  even  when  it 
sins,  and  the  former  displeases  Him  even  in  sanctity.27 
These  words  must  be  interpreted  analogously  to  those 
above,  namely:  if  it  were  possible  that  pride  could 
consort  with  sanctity,  this  union  would  be  blamable, 
while  sin  united  with  perfect  humility  would  be  esti- 
mable. In  the  same  way  we  should  interpret  Lu- 
ther's words :  not  as  an  invitation  to  sin,  but  as  a 
hyperbole  exalting  faith,  as  if  we  should  say :  Be- 
lieve more  and  more,  for  if  you  do  so,  then  sin  and 
faith  may  be  made  compatible,  and  the  latter  will 
triumph  over  the  former. 

If  we  pass  from  theory  to  practice,  from  theology 
to  morals,  we  come  across  a  maxim  of  Christ,  who 
says  repeatedly:  Do  not  look  to  the  words  but  to 
the  works,  for  the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit.  If  this 
were  done,  then  we  should  hasten  at  once  to  embrace 
Reformism.  What  were  the  present  Reformist  na- 
tions while  they  still  were  Romanist,  with  respect  to 
the  others?  Who  will  gainsay  that  we  were  greatly 
superior  to  them  in  everything,28  in  literature,  phi- 
losophy, theology,  exegesis,  social  culture  and  so 
forth?  And  what  has  happened  since  then?  The 
Romanist  nations  29  have  declined  more  and  more,  so 
that  now  many  of  them  are  spoken  of  as  dead  nations, 
while  the  Reformist  nations  are  steadily  advancing 
in   knowledge,   in   morality   and   in   general   progress. 

27  Roman  Breviary  Lessons. 

28  Read  Erasmus'  Letters  at  the  epoch  when  Spain  was  con- 
sidered one  of  the  most  cultured  nations. 

29  Julio  Fern* :  Decadence  of  the  Latin  Countries  and  Its 
Causes. 


296  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

For  anyone  at  all  acquainted  with  contemporaneous 
statistics,  this  is  a  terrible  argument  against  Roman- 
ism and  most  favorable  to  Reformism.  Oh,  if  only 
there  were  not  so  much  sophism  and  prejudice!  If 
these  were  not  darkening  the  serenity  of  every  re- 
ligious discussion,  the  progress  of  Protestantism  in 
Latin  Europe  would  be  much  more  rapid  and  ef- 
fective. 

We  may  say,  speaking  of  ourselves,  that  convinced 
of  the  falsehood  of  many  of  the  Roman  tenets,  which 
we  have  set  forth  in  this  book,  we  began  to  study 
Protestantism  with  the  eagerness  of  one  expecting  at 
any  moment  to  come  across  terrible  revelations  of 
scandal  and  corruption.  We  had  been  accustomed  to 
read  and  hear  in  books  and  conversations 30  of  the 
abominable  sacrileges  of  the  founders  of  Protestant- 
ism, their  corrupt  lives,  their  dissolute  customs,  their 
lack  of  religion,  and  their  open  impiety.  But  we 
were  astonished  and  agreeably  disappointed  when,  on 
visiting  some  Protestant  congregations,  we  observed 
the  order  and  devotion  of  the  people,  the  unction  and 
fervor  of  their  preachers,  and  above  all,  the  love  that 
many  Protestants  profess  for  Christ,  and  the  fervent 
adoration  with  which  they  regard  and  read  the  Holy 
Books.  Oh,  how  willingly  we  would  exchange  the 
whole  mass  of  Romanist  beliefs,  and  practices,  for 
these  two  things  only :  love  and  faith  in  Christ,  and 
respect  and  obedience  to  the  Holy  Books.  These  two 
things  would  be  sufficient  to  restore  faith  in  the  super- 

80  Read  any  Roman  author  when  he  speaks  about  Protest- 
antism. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  297 

natural,  and  all  the  other  things  combined  could  not 
prevent  it  from  being  lost  entirely. 

We  are  astonished  to  see  that  Protestants  are  tak- 
ing the  lead  in  questions  in  which  Romanists  ought  to 
lead,  judging  from  appearances.  When  we  began  to 
study  the  great  question  of  the  prohibition  of  the  sale 
of  alcoholic  beverages  in  the  several  states,  we  re- 
member how  forcibly  we  were  struck  to  observe  in 
how  many  of  them  Protestants  had  triumphed,  and 
were  about  to  triumph  in  others,  over  the  passivity 
and  even  the  opposition  of  Catholics.31  Who  would 
believe  this?  we  asked  ourselves.  If  we  should  relate 
this  in  Europe,  it  would  be  held  to  be  a  calumny,  and 
yet  we  read  it  in  credible  periodicals,  that  while  all 
the  Reformist  preachers  of  cities  as  important  as  New 
Orleans  were  urgent  in  favor  of  prohibition,32  declara- 
tions appeared  by  Cardinal  Gibbons  in  favor  of  the 
continuation  of  the  public  sale  of  alcoholic  beverages. 
Who  would  have  thought  such  a  thing,  we  exclaimed, 
that  the  representatives  of  error  and  of  corruption 
of  morals,  according  to  Romanism,  should  rise  up 
against  the  sale  of  alcoholic  beverages,  while  the  dele- 
gates of  the  Pope,  and  the  representative  of  Roman- 
ism in  America,  should  appear  in  its  favor. 

To  the  reader  we  will  say  that  on  this  question  we 
confine  ourselves  to  relating  tendencies,  without  un- 
dertaking to  judge  of  their  respective  merits.  This 
is  an  intricate  question,  involving  interests  as  great 

31  An  interview  with  His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  on 
the  liquor  question,  was  published  by  the  Associated  Press 
papers. 

™  New  Orleans  newspapers. 


298  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

and  complex  as  public  morals,  and  the  people's  pros- 
perity, and  we  do  not  possess  sufficient  data  to  take 
the  liberty,  in  however  humble  a  way,  of  formulating 
a  correct  opinion.  We  simply  and  sincerely  state  the 
impression  produced  upon  us  by  a  controversy  which, 
at  first  sight,  appeared  to  us  as  though  the  roles  had 
been  changed.  The  relaxation  of  morals  with  which 
Romanism  charges  Protestantism  is  found  neither  in 
its  social  tendencies  nor  in  its  customs,  but  on  the 
contrary  the  visible  prosperity  of  the  nations,  in  which 
they  are  more  widely  spread,  is  very  apparent.  And 
on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen  above  in  its  theo- 
ries, they  appear  biblical,  and  very  similar  to  true 
Romanism  in  such  fundamental  questions  as  Justifi- 
cation. 

Closely  connected  with  this  question  and  as  a  corol- 
lary to  it,  we  have  another  point  of  controversy  be- 
tween Reformists  and  Romanists,  namely,  the  invoca- 
tion and  worship  of  saints.  If  we  examine  this  ques- 
tion with  strict  regard  to  the  Bible  and  to  theology, 
the  decision  is  in  favor  of  Protestantism.  While  we 
have  in  the  Holy  Books  passages  which  disapprove  in 
no  uncertain  language  of  this  practice,  the  allusions 
that  appear  favorable  to  it  are  obscure,  and  by  no 
means  as  clear  as  is  the  emphatic  denunciation  of  it. 
If  we  were  a  Protestant  we  could  easily  answer  the 
series  of  witnesses  in  favor  of  it,  brought  forward  by 
Cardinal  Gibbons,  as  follows:  His  Eminence  under- 
takes to  demonstrate  that  the  invocation  of  saints, 
and  especially  of  angels,  is  clearly  found  in  the  Old 
Testament ; 33  in  another  chapter  His  Eminence  in- 
33  Cardinal  Gibbons :    Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  Chapter  XIII. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  299 

clines  to  the  belief  that  before  the  condemnation  of 
Christ  the  Synagogue  possessed 34  the  gift  of  sure- 
ness,  and  a  kind  of  infallibility  like  that  which  Roman- 
ism ascribes  to  the  ruling  Pope.  Therefore  if  these 
passages  mean  anything,  and  the  Synagogue  pos- 
sessed this  prerogative  of  sureness  and  infallibility, 
then  saints  and  angels  should  have  been  made  the  ob- 
jects of  public  and  official  worship  and  invocation  dur- 
ing the  life  of  the  Synagogue.  As  Your  Eminence 
sees,  the  argument  is  legitimate;  both  premises  are 
from  Your  Eminence :  the  first,  the  texts ;  the  second, 
your  statement  in  your  book.  Only  the  conclusion  is 
ours,  we  admit ;  but  it  may  also  be  attributed  to  Your 
Eminence,  since  it  is  contained  in  your  premises.  And 
now  we  ask  you :  Does  Cardinal  Gibbons  know  the 
ritual  prescriptions  of  the  ancient  Law?  Has  he  read 
the  worship  offered  to  God  in  the  great  Temple?  We 
ask,  with  all  the  respect  due  His  Eminence  if  he  will 
kindly  indicate  to  us  in  what  part  of  the  Temple  ap- 
peared, either  in  sculpture  or  paint,  the  images  of 
angels  or  saints?  In  what  ritual  law  is  their  invoca- 
tion prescribed?  In  what  public  acts  or  feasts  did 
the  people  come  together  to  implore  their  protection 
and  aid?  With  our  small  knowledge  of  the  Bible 
and  of  history  we  have  found  no  indication  of  of- 
ficial and  public  worship  such  as  Romanism  practices. 
If  we  were  a  Protestant,  Cardinal,  we  should  reply  to 
you :  Your  Eminence  appeals  to  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  Synagogue.  Very  well.  We  also  appeal  to 
these  witnesses,  and  we  should  be  glad  to  have  you 

M  Cardinal  Gibbons:    Faith  of  Onr  Fathers,  Chapters  VII, 
VIII,  IX. 


300  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

prove  to  us,  by  the  ritual  practices  of  Judaism,  that 
we  are  wrong. 

Now  let  us  pass  from  the  Old  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  we  shall  find  that  the  invocation  and  wor- 
ship of  the  saints  is  both  anti-evangelical  and  anti- 
theological. 

One  of  the  most  clearly  and  definitely  defined  en- 
deavors of  Christ  is  to  purify  His  new  worship  from 
the  Jewish  formalism,  to  remove  all  barriers  between 
man  and  God,  and  to  proclaim  the  direct  invocation 
of  God  by  every  man,  and  the  more  intimate  and  spir- 
itual this  invocation,  the  better.  You  will  see  this 
clearly,  if  you  read  His  conversation  with  the  Samari- 
tan woman.35  He  inculcated  the  idea  that  God  is 
with  us,  that  whenever  we  ask  Him  He  gives,  when- 
ever we  knock  at  His  door  He  opens,  whenever  we 
pray  to  Him  He  hears  us.36  And  as  if  He  had  not 
sufficiently  set  forth  His  doctrine  of  intimate  and  im- 
mediate communication  with  God,  and  to  leave  no 
doubt  whatever,  He  excludes  every  other  interven- 
tion and  invocation.  Do  not  call  anyone  good  or  holy 
except  God,  because  He  only  is  good ;  do  not  call  any- 
one father,  or  master,  or  intercessor,  except  God,  for 
He  only  is  your  intercessor,  master,  and  father.37 
There  are  two  ideas  that  stand  forth  in  this  teaching 
of  Christ:  direct  communication  between  the  faithful 
and  God,  and  that  such  communication  shall  not  be 
made  with  the  noisy  wordiness  with  which  the  Phari- 
sees sought  God. 

35  John  iv.  21-24. 

36  Matt.  vii.  7.    John  xiv.  23. 

37  Matt,  xxiii.  8-10. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  3OI 

This  is  the  Christian  thesis,  and  the  Roman  thesis 
has  apparently  taken  upon  itself  the  task  of  destroy- 
ing it,  in  both  senses. 

We  ask  Your  Eminence  to  look  around  in  the  Ro- 
man world ;  count,  if  you  can,  the  temples,  sanctuaries 
and  relics  of  the  saints,  and  if  this  is  not  sufficient 
proof,  then  look  at  the  Roman  Missal  and  Breviary. 
And  here  it  seems  as  if  Romanism  had  undertaken  to 
contradict  Christ  more  brazenly  than  anywhere  else. 
The  worship  and  invocation  of  saints  take  up  more 
than  nine-tenths  of  its  prayers,  orations  and  worship; 
of  its  temples,  sanctuaries  and  images.  Count,  if 
Your  Eminence  can,  the  multitude  of  prayers,  peti- 
tions, litanies,  rosaries,  and  so  forth,  which  Roman- 
ism approves,  encourages  and  rewards.  If  the  loud 
prayers  of  the  hypocritical  Pharisees  disgusted  Him,38 
we  believe  that  if  He  should  enter  now  into  some 
Roman  congregation  He  would  again  take  up  the 
scourge,  and  drive  out  those  who  pretended  with 
such  practices  to  call  themselves  His  sons  and  faith- 
ful. 

The  invocation  of  saints  appears  still  more  ridicu- 
lous and  absurd  if  we  pass  from  the  Gospels  to  the- 
ology and  history.  Roman  theology  teaches  that 
there  is  no  other  mediator  but  Christ.39  Because  of 
our  great  respect  for  the  honor  and  dignity  of  woman- 
hood, we  have  refrained,  when  dealing  with  the  in- 
vocation of  saints,  from  mentioning  anything  con- 
nected with  the  attributes  given  by  Romanism  to  the 

88  Matt.  vi.  7. 

89  Hurter,  Perrone,  Billuart,  Cardinal  Vives :  De  Deo  Re- 
demptore. 


302  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

life,  mediation  and  power  of  Mary,  Mother  of  Jesus. 
If  there  is  no  other,  why  then  invoke  the  saints? 
Here  the  Romanists  find  themselves  in  a  tight  place. 
Seeking  an  analogy  in  political  life,  which  is  absurd 
and  even  blasphemous,  they  say:  Although  the  king 
is  the  state,  in  absolute  monarchies  40  he  nevertheless 
has  his  ministers,  as  delegates,  and  very  often  it  is 
easier  to  obtain  something  through  the  mediation  of 
his  ministers,  than  by  going  to  the  king  himself. 

Let  us  examine  briefly,  this  great  and  almost  blas- 
phemous necessity.  The  king,  being  a  person  with 
human  limitations,  needs  his  delegates  to  help  him. 
But  is  not  God  omnipotent?  Is  His  omnipotence  such 
that  it  can  grow  weary,  or  that  it  cannot  deal  with  all 
things  ?  Do  you  not  proclaim  41  that  God  is  not  only 
the  creator  and  conserver  of  all  things,  but  that  He 
also  works  in  them  and  with  them,  more  than  they 
can  by  themselves  ?  Does  not  your  theology  teach  42 
that  from  the  nebulae  to  man,  God  is  the  prime  mover, 
and  the  chief  cause,  of  all  that  happens  in  the  uni- 
verse? Do  you  not  say  that  God  cooperates  in  the 
gravitation  of  inert  bodies,  vegetates  in  the  plants, 
feels  in  the  beast,  thinks  and  desires  in  man,  to  such 
a  point  that  all  these  movements  are  even  more  of 
God  than  of  the  creatures  themselves,  and  therefore 
you   call   these   latter,   secondary   causes?     If  then,43 

40  St.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio :   On  the  Invocation  of  Saints. 

41  St.  Thomas,  Billuart,  Hurter,  P.  Fernandez,  Perrone :  De 
Deo  Conservatore. 

42  Billuart,  St.  Thomas,  Hurter,  etc.,  etc. :  Del  Concurso 
Divino.  Cardinals  Gonzalez  and  Zigliara :  Teodicia,  Del 
Concurso  Divino. 

43  The  Catholic  priests  when  answering  objections  put  to 
them,  by  unbelievers;    read  especially:    Billuart  and  Perrone. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  303 

you  answer  the  impious,  when  he  objects  that  it  would 
be  too  much  work  for  God  to  do  all  this,  that  far 
from  being  so,  God  does  all  this  without  the  least 
trouble  and  with  absolute  facility,  why  do  you  have 
recourse  to  the  theory  of  delegates  in  dealing  with 
man  and  his  salvation?  Moreover,  the  king  cannot 
always  know  the  minds  of  his  vassals,  nor  are  the 
latter  always  sufficiently  eloquent  to  plead  their  own 
cause;  and  besides,  the  king  looks  to  the  person,  that 
is  to  say,  he  is  partial.  For  all  these  reasons  people 
find  it  convenient  to  go  to  his  friends  and  favorites. 
But,  my  Roman  friends,  is  your  God  as  ignorant  as 
many  kings  are  wont  to  be?  Is  your  God  also  among 
those  who  let  themselves  be  seduced  by  fine  words? 
Is  your  God  also  an  accepter  of  persons,  partial  and 
unjust?  Don't  you  see  that  by  appealing  to  this  par- 
tiality as  a  good  thing  you  blaspheme  the  other  divine 
attributes?  No,  neither  the  intervention  nor  the  wor- 
ship of  saints  finds  a  good  support  in  good  theology. 
Only  from  the  point  of  view  of  history,  we  would 
admit,  not  the  invocation  and  worship  of  saints,  but 
the  retelling  of  their  lives,  with  due  approbations,  to 
serve  as  examples  to  later  men.  But  this  does  not 
mean  that  temples  should  be  built  in  their  honor,  nor 
pictures  painted  of  them  with  aureoles,  nor  should 
they  be  invested  with  a  power  which  is  absurd  and 
anti-theological.  To  commemorate  them,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  know  their  lives,  and  to  preserve  pictures  of 
them  and  things  that  once  belonged  to  them,  but  with- 
out ascribing  to  either  of  these  a  power  and  virtue 
which  are  contrary  to  faith.  Respect,  gratitude,  and 
admiration  are  admissible,  and  great  moralizing 
21 


3O4  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

agencies;  but  invocation,  adoration  and  worship  cor- 
rupt the  faith  and  are  detrimental  to  the  character  of 
the  worshiper.  Do  not  confound  one  thing  with 
another.  Therefore  the  example  cited  by  Cardinal 
Gibbons  in  his  chapter  seems  to  us  very  inexact.44 
Does  Your  Eminence  think  that  this  secular  respect 
and  admiration  are  identical  with  the  Roman  cult  and 
invocation?  If  this  were  so,  we  would  beg  to  ask 
His  Eminence  to  review  his  theological  studies  and 
reread  the  Roman  Liturgy.  Then  he  could  refer  to 
a  multitude  of  acts  and  practices,  he  could  speak  of 
innumerable  miracles  and  relics  which  are  the  great- 
est laughing-stock  of  the  religion,  and  among  its 
blackest  abuses.45  But  as  it  is  not  within  our  design 
to  tread  the  byways  of  scandal,  we  will  end  this  chap- 
ter in  proclaiming,  that  if  faith  is  sufficient  for  justi- 
fication, then  the  worship  and  invocation  of  saints 
are  neither  necessary  nor  fitting  to  conserve  it. 

"Cardinal  Gibbons:    Chapter  XIV,  pp.  215,  216. 

45  Those  wishing  to  read  on  this  subject  a  very  interesting 
book,  full  of  historical  testimonies,  can  secure  the  work  of 
Roberto  Roberts :    Title,  Cachivaches  de  Antano. 


CHAPTER  XXL 

THE  SACRAMENTS. 

IN  agreement  with  the  principles  laid  down,  we  shall 
discuss  only  two  of  the  sacraments:  confession 
and  the  Eucharist.  We  shall  not  speak  of  baptism, 
because  both  Protestants  and  Romanists  recognize  and 
observe  it  almost  in  the  same  way.  Of  the  other  four 
sacraments  we  shall  say  a  few  words  at  the  end,  in 
order  to  indicate  the  fundamental  principles  in  which 
Romanism  pretends  to  found  them. 

The  most  important  of  all  the  sacraments,  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  doctrine,  is  that  of  confession. 
There  is  none  on  the  observance  of  which  it  insists 
with  greater  obstinacy,  nor  which  it  strives  more  as- 
siduously to  deduce  from  the  Gospels.  Unfortunately 
for  its  endeavors,  the  more  progress  is  made  in  the 
study  of  exegesis  and  antiquity,  and  the  more  closely 
the  primitive  witnesses  cited  by  Romanism  are  ex- 
amined in  the  light  of  these  studies,  the  more  their 
testimony  loses  in  value.1  In  order  to  interpret  cor- 
rectly certain  Biblical  passages,  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  the  Hebrew  people  observed  a  kind  of  confession 
in  their  way.2     "Confess  your  sins  to  God ;  be  sorry 

1  Jaugey :  Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe,  head,  Auricu- 
lar Confession.  Encyclopedia  Britannica :  Heads,  Penance, 
Confession. 

2  Matt.  iii.  2,  6,  7,  8. 

(305) 


306  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

for  them;  rend  your  hearts  by  penitence,"  etc.,  etc. — 
sentences  like  these  occur  frequently  in  the  Bible. 

When  our  Saviour  appeared,  John  the  Baptist  was 
preaching  the  baptism  of  penitence  on  the  banks  of 
the  Jordan.3  This  desire  to  confess  their  sins  to  God 
and  to  repent  of  them  was  moreover  a  part  of  the 
ritual  recognized  by  the  mass  of  the  pious  Israelites. 
Jesus  Christ  then  approved  of  and  encouraged  this 
regenerative  impulse.  What  He  says  in  regard  to 
confession  and  repentance  of  sin  must  be  understood 
as  John  the  Baptist  understood  it,  and  therefore  as 
in  those  days  the  pious  Israelites  understood  it.4  If 
Jesus  Christ  had  intended  any  innovation  in  this  mat- 
ter He  would  have  so  expressed  Himself,  clearly  and 
forcibly,  as  He  always  does  when  He  wishes  to  pro- 
claim doctrines  that  are  new  or  not  believed  in  by 
His  contemporaries.5  If  no  mention  is  made  of  it, 
this  is  a  clear  indication  that  on  this  point-  He  did  not 
teach  or  demand  more  than  John  preached  and  taught. 

This  view  is  further  supported  by  history.  Had 
auricular  confession  been  a  divine  precept,  in  the  apos- 
tolic and  sub-apostolic  epoch,  we  should  frequently 
find  it  recommended.  Take  the  sacraments  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Eucharist :  there  is  not  an  apostle  or  an 
apostolic  father  of  the  apostolic  period  who  does  not 
speak  of  them.  But  why  are  they  silent  as  to  auricu- 
lar confession  ? 6  Is  this  not  the  strongest  possible 
argument  against  its  existence?     And  the  argument 

3  Mark  i.  4,  15. 

4  Luke  iii.  23. 

5  Consult  the  Gospels  as  to  Charity  and  Eucharist. 

6  Jaugey :    Diccionario  Apologetico  de  la  Fe,  head,  Auricu- 
lar Confession. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  2)°7 

is  still  further  strengthened  if  we  add  that  the  first 
words  which  we  find  on  confession  refer  to  another 
kind,  and  not  to  auricular  confession.7  There  are  a 
multitude  of  witnesses  with  regard  to  public  confes- 
sion, both  in  the  Orient  and  in  Europe,  namely,  the 
councils  and  the  Fathers,  in  the  first  century,  who  tell 
us  of  confession ;  why,  then,  do  we  not  find  among 
them  any  clear  and  definite  reference  to  auricular  con- 
fession? Had  it  been  general  and  obligatory,  had  it 
been  observed  by  all  the  faithful,  how  could  we  ac- 
count for  this  premeditated  silence?  And  that  our 
authorities  are  silent  on  this  point  will  be  admitted 
by  anyone  who  has  made  even  a  cursory  study  of 
the  tradition  and  the  history  of  the  sub-apostolic 
period.8  Moreover,  the  language  of  St.  Augustine 
and  St.  Chrysostom  shows  beyond  a  doubt  that  auricu- 
lar confession  did  not  exist  in  the  first  centuries.  For 
if  it  had  existed  as  a  divine  precept,  the  language 
of  these  holy  Fathers  would  have  to  be  interpreted  as 
being  opposed  to  it,  a  supposition  that  would  be  of- 
fensive and  almost  blasphemous.9 

It  is  therefore  evident  to  every  impartial  historian, 
that  confession,  like  celibacy  and  the  doctrine  of  in- 
fallibility, is  of  pure  ecclesiastical  origin.  And  again, 
the  Roman  Church  is  contradicting  herself.  Roman- 
ism teaches  that  contrition  wipes  out  the  sins  before 

7  Same  work,  head,  Public  Confession.  Read  the  Catholic 
historians  Eusebius,  Rohrbacher,  Fleury  and  Rivas :  On  pub- 
lic confession. 

8  Read  Migne :  Apostolic  Fathers.  Jaugey :  Heads,  Con- 
fession, Penance. 

9  Encyclopedia  Britarmjca ;    Heads,  Confession,  Penance. 


308  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

absolution  by  the  priest.10  Do  not  say  to  me  here 
that  this  is  conditional  on  the  vow  or  the  intention 
of  confessing  them;  for  the  best  and  sanest  theolo- 
gians do  not  hold  such  a  vow  to  be  explicitly  made,11 
but  reduce  it  to  the  simple  intention  of  complying 
with  some  other  condition  imposed,  and  therefore 
they  themselves  proclaim  that  no  such  obligation  as 
a  divine  precept  exists,  and  that  the  simple  confession 
or  an  expression  of  detestation  of  the  sin,  uttered  be- 
fore God  with  true  sorrow  for  having  committed  it, 
is  sufficient. 

There  being,  as  we  have  seen,  no  Divine  precept 
such  as  the  sacrament  of  confession,  the  Church 
would  undertake  a  reform  for  its  own  benefit  by 
abolishing  this  obligation.  It  is  one  of  the  most  ob- 
jectionable practices  for  the  faithful.  The  majority 
of  those  who  separate  from  the  Roman  Church  do  so 
because  of  this  humiliating  precept.  It  may  be  ar- 
gued by  the  Romanist  that  those  who  leave  the  Church 
because  of  confession  do  so  because  they  wish  to  con- 
tinue in  sin  and  could  not  do  so  if  required  to  confess. 
In  rebuttal  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  vast  majority 
who  renounce  the  Church  do  so,  because  they  are 
satisfied  that  the  confessional  is  but  another  of  the 
ecclesiastical  sophistries  for  retaining  power  over  the 
minds  of  the  masses  who  do  not  investigate  for  them- 
selves, and  are  either  content  to  remain  in,  subjection 
or  are  made  so  through  fear  and  superstition.  And 
those  who  do  not  separate  themselves  do  not  comply 

10Jaugey:    Heads,   Contrition,   Confession,   Penance.      Ber- 
tier :   Theological  Compendium,  speaking  about  contrition. 
11  Same  authors  and  heads. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  309 

with  it,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  previous  chapter.  It 
may  be  said  in  general  that  it  has  fallen  into  disuse. 
On  the  other  hand  it  involves  great  dangers,  where 
no  benefits  appear.  The  practice  of  confession  is  one 
of  the  most  inimical  to  celibacy.  The  priest  is  not 
made  of  brass,  as  Job  says,  nor  is  he  an  angel,12  as 
unfortunately  we  all  know.  And  how  could  a  man 
remain  chaste,  who  by  virtue  of  his  office  constantly 
hears  the  most  inciting  references,  and  is  brought  in 
contact  with  scenes  most  likely  to  inflame  even  the 
least  ardent  imagination?  On  the  part  of  the  faithful 
no  reform  is  to  be  seen.  The  Latin  nations  are  on  the 
whole  more  immoral  than  the  Anglo-Saxon.  When- 
ever the  faithful  shall  accustom  themselves  to  confess 
to  God  and  to  feel  true  repentance  for  their  sins,  then 
their  desire  to  depart  from  evil  will  become  more 
firm,  and  their  repentance  more  effective  and  lasting. 
The  false  hope  that  sin  is  forgiven  in  the  act  of  ab- 
solution, and  the  absurd  assurance  that  it  remains 
forgiven  after  the  penitent  has  risen  from  kneelirr; 
before  the  priest,  dull  the  pangs  of  conscience  and  kill 
the  sorrow  for  sin.  But  when  the  believer,  the  true 
believer,  finds  God  standing  between  his  conscience 
and  his  sin,  then  he  will  feel  that  he  is  not  forgiven 
until  he  has  truly  atoned  for  it,  and  a  deeply  felt  sor- 
row has  wiped  it  out.  If  we  add  to  this  argument 
the  further  statement  that  in  some  dioceses,  and  as  far 
as  may  be  seen,  everywhere  in  general,  in  view  of 
the  latest  doctrine  of  the  Church,  the  confessional  is 
in   many   cases   a   menace   to   honesty,   not   only   I  lie 

12  Job  vi.  12. 


3IO  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Church  but  even  the  governments  ought  to  ask  and 
work  for  its  abolishment. 

The  other  sacrament  in  regard  to  which  there  are 
grave  differences  is  that  of  the  Eucharist.  Speaking 
with  the  sincerity  *  for  which  I  have  always  striven, 
I  may  say  that  if  the  passages  of  the  Bible  referring 
to  it  are  to  be  taken  literally,  there  is  no  point  in 
which  Romanism  is  apparently  more  right  than  on 
this.  Some  passages  seem  to  indicate  definitely  that 
we  are  not  dealing  here  with  symbolism  or  metaphor 
of  any  kind,  but  that  the  body  and  the  blood  of  Je- 
sus Christ  is  received  materially  and  bit  by  bit,  not  in 
a  spiritual  sense,  but  in  a  real  and  physical  sense. 
But  if  we  collate  all  those  passages,  if  we  bear  in 
mind  the  general  symbolism  of  the  Bible,  and  above 
all,  if  we  consider  the  contradictions  and  absurdities 
involved  in  such  a  doctrine,  then  we  shall  clearly  see 
that  they  can  be  interpreted  only  in  a  spiritual  sense. 

Let  us  begin  with  St.  John.  This  evangelist  reports 
as  follows:    Chapter  vi.  35-61. 

"I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for 
ever :  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which 
I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world. 

"The  Jews  therefore  strove  among  themselves,  say- 
ing, How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat? 

"Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 

"Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
hath  eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  3II 

"For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink 
indeed. 

"He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him. 

"As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by 
the  Father:  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall  live 
by  me. 

"This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven : 
not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna,  and  are  dead:  he 
that  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever. 

"These  things  said  he  in  the  synagogue,  as  he 
taught  in   Capernaum. 

"Many  therefore  of  his  disciples,  when  they  had 
heard  this,  said,  This  is  an  hard  saying:  who  can 
hear  it? 

"When  Jesus  knew  in  himself  that  his  disciples 
murmured  at  it,  he  said  unto  them,  Doth  this  of- 
fend you?" 

If  this  entire  passage  is  to  be  taken  literally,  then  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that  from  that  moment  the  faithful 
were  to  eat  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  to  drink  of  His 
divine  blood,  because  the  Evangelist  also  speaks  of 
the  present  in  many  of  his  affirmations :  "This  is  the 
bread  which  came  down  from  heaven" ;  "whoso  eateth 
my  body,  and  drinketh  my  blood,"  etc.  To  interpret 
this  passage  literally  would  be  contradictory  to  Ro- 
man tradition  ia  and  many  other  passages  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  the  Apostolic  writings,  which  indicate  that 
this  sacrament  was  instituted  on  the  night  of  the  Last 

13  Hurter,  Schouppe,  Bertier,  Cardinal  Vives ;  When  they 
speak  about  the  eucharjstjc  institution. 


312  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Supper.14  Therefore  we  cannot  give  to  that  passage 
a  strictly  literal  sense.  Furthermore,  St.  John,  among 
the  Biblical  writers,  is  the  one  most  addicted  to  meta- 
phorical and  symbolical  language.  He  tells  us  that 
Christ  calls  Himself  the  Way,15  the  Life,  the  Shepherd, 
the  Door,  etc.  If  we  consider  the  last  words  quoted 
from  that  chapter,  we  see  clearly  that  he  does  not 
speak  of  His  material  body  and  blood,  since  He  says 
that  the  flesh  does  not  serve  for  anything,  and  further : 
"My  words  are  spirit  and  life."  Hence  we  must  un- 
derstand them  as  meaning  something  spiritual,  and 
not  material. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  St.  Paul.  His  words  are  those 
which  are  quoted  by  the  Church  at  the  feast  of  Cor- 
pus Christi — I  Corinthians  xi :  20-30 : 

"When  ye  come  together  therefore  into  one  place, 
this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper. 

"For  in  eating  every  one  taketh  before  other  his 
own  supper:  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is 
drunken. 

"What !  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ? 
or  despise  ye  the  Church  of  God,  and  shame  them 
that  have  not?  What  shall  I  say  to  you?  Shall  I 
praise  you  in  this?    I  praise  you  not. 

"For  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I 
delivered  unto  you,  That  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread: 

"And  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and 

14  St.  Matthew,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  Mark,  when  they  speak 
about  the  Holy  Supper.    St.  Paul,  I  Corinthians  xi.  23,  24. 

15  John  iv.  13,  14;   x.  1  18;     xi.  25;   xv.  1-6. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  313 

said,  Take,  eat:  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for 
you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 

"After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when 
he  had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  testament 
in  my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  re- 
membrance of  me. 

"For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come. 

"Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and 
drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 

"But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup. 

"For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eat- 
eth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discerning 
the  Lord's  body. 

"For  this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among 
you,  and  many  sleep." 

At  first  sight  it  might  seem  that  these  words  can 
be  interpreted  only  in  the  Romanistic  sense,  since  the 
Apostle  affirms  that  he  who  eats  and  drinks  unworth- 
ily, sins  against  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  But 
if  this  chapter  is  closely  examined,  we  shall  find  that 
there  is  perhaps  no  passage  which  is  a  better  denial 
of  the  Roman  dogma  of  transubstantiation.  From  the 
context  it  appears  that  the  primitive  Christians  came 
together  to  eat  and  drink,  each  one  his  own  food  and 
his  own  wine.  And  what  caused  the  indignation  of 
St.  Paul  was,  not  that  they  brought  their  food  and 
drink  into  the  Church,  but  that  thereby  they  broke  up 
equality  and  fraternity ;  that  they  did  not  wait  for  one 
another,   and   that   some   ate   much   and    well,   while 


314  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

others  ate  scantily  and  poorly,  that  some  drank  to 
the  extent  of  becoming  intoxicated,  while  others  re- 
mained thirsty.  If  the  sacrament  had  been  previously 
consecrated  by  the  priest,  and  if  this  primitive  peo- 
ple had  believed  in  transubstantiation,  then  such 
abuses  would  not  have  seemed  likely,  such  a  short 
time  after  Paul's  preaching.  This  entire  passage 
clearly  indicates  that  in  those  primitive  times,  the 
Eucharist  was  in  the  nature  of  a  meal  in  common,  a 
token  of  unity  and  charity,  in  the  belief  that,  through 
the  promise  of  Christ,  this  meal  had  a  spiritual  grace, 
imparted  to  it  by  Him.  This  interpretation  becomes 
still  more  clear  if  we  read  verses  16  and  ij  of  the 
preceding  chapter.  In  these  verses  also  St.  Paul, 
while  he  affirms  that  the  bread  is  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  the  cup  is  His  blood,  at  the  same  time  indicates 
clearly  that  this  must  not  be  understood  in  a  material 
sense,  but  as  being  symbolical  of  collectivity  and 
union,  body  and  congregation  being  here  synonymous, 
as  are  body,  bread  and  faithful.  I  beg  the  reader 
please  to  read  carefully  and  impartially  the  passages 
indicated  in  St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  and  he  will  per- 
ceive that  their  signification  is  clearly  spiritual  and 
mystical,  and  not  concrete  and  material. 

However,  that  which  most  forcibly  induces  us  to 
believe  that  Romanism  is  in  error,  is  the  series  of 
absurdities  which  follows  upon  the  admission  of  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  Let  us  examine  this 
doctrine  in  the  light  of  scholastic  theology  and  phi- 
losophy.    It  is  held  as  an  axiom  16  among  the  Roman 

16  Jaugey :    Head,  Mysteries.    F.  Camara's  Answer  to  Drap- 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  315 

apologists,  that  no  mystery,  however  incomprehensible 
it  may  be  for  human  reason,  may  involve  any  mani- 
fest contradiction  with  itself.  Since  the  one  God 
is  the  author  of  nature  and  of  grace,  both  orders  of 
truths  proceed  from  the  same  origin,  and  it  is  there- 
fore impossible  that  they  should  contradict  each 
other.17  From  this  conclusion  they  deduce  that  ev- 
erything which  clearly  contradicts  reason  must  be 
thrown  out.  Let  us  examine  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  in  the  light  of  this  truth.  According  to 
Romanism,  when  Christ  instituted  the  Eucharist,  on 
the  night  of  the  Last  Supper,  He  Himself  gave  the 
first  communion  to  the  apostles.18  Both  of  these  truths 
are  believed  without  qualification  by  Romanism.  Very 
well.  Christ  was  then  mortal,  individual,  and  en- 
dowed with  human  feelings.  If  during  this  commun- 
ion the  bread  was  transformed  into  the  body  of  Christ 
and  the  wine  into  his  blood,  then  they  were  of  ne- 
cessity transformed  into  such  material  as  Christ  was 
composed  of  at  that  sublime  moment;  consequently 
the  apostles  had  to  cat  and  drink,  each  and  every  one 
of  the  living  mortal  and  sensitive  flesh  and  blood  of 
this  same  Christ.  The  great  and  grave  contradictions 
involved  in  this  supposition  will  be  apparent  to  every- 
one. God,  notwithstanding  His  omnipotence,  cannot 
make  a  thing  to  be  one  only,  and  at  the  same  time 

per,  chapter,  Mysteries.  Cardinal  Gonzalez :  The  Bible  and 
Science. 

17  Father  Mir :  Head,  Harmony  between  Faith  and  Reason. 
Father  Mendive :  Faith  Indicated  in  the  Natural  and  Super- 
natural Order.  Canons  of  the  Vatican  Council :  On  Faith 
and  Reason. 

18  St.  Matthew,  St.  Luke,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Paul,  same 
chapter  as  mentioned  in  note  14  above. 


316  POM  AN    CATHOLICISM 

and  under  the  same  conditions  two  or  more  things 
also,  for  this  involves  a  contradiction ;  and  according 
to  the  theologians,  a  contradiction  cannot  be  real- 
ized ; 19  not  because  God  has  not  the  power  to  bring 
it  to  pass,  but  the  thing  cannot  be  done,  as  it  would 
involve  its  own  annihilation. 

Let  us  elucidate  this  profound  theological  doctrine 
by  analogous  clearer  doctrines.  When  Romanism 
speaks  mystically  of  persons 20  who  appear  at  the 
same  time  in  two  different  places,  it  feels  obliged 
to  say  in  explanation  that  in  one  of  these  places  this 
person  is  not  present  in  reality,  but  the  apparition 
seen  is  merely  some  moral  image  of  it,  since  it  is  re- 
pugnant to  reason  that  one  single  individual  should 
resolve  himself  into  two  separate  individuals  at  the 
same  time. 

In  speaking  of  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity,21 
Romanism  says  that  there  is  no  contradiction,  for,  al- 
though it  may  appear  that  there  are  three  and  one, 
neither  the  word  one  as  such  refers  to  the  three,  nor 
the  word  three  as  such  refers  to  the  number  one ;  but 
the  concepts  in  virtue  of  which  we  make  our  state- 
ments regarding  the  one  and  three,  are  different. 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  however,  this  rea- 
soning does  not  apply:  Christ  was  at  that  moment  a 
man  as  such,  like  any  other  man,  a  single,  definite  in- 
dividual, and  all  his  members  held  the  same  relation, 

19  Read  Cardinals  Zigliara  and  Gonzalez :  Teodicea,  on  the 
Impossible.  Granclaude,  Mendive :  Teodicea,  same  head. 
Jaugey:    Head,  Impossible. 

20  Escaramelli :    Obras  Mistieas  :    De  las  Apariciones. 
21Perrone:    On  the  Mystery  of  the  Virgin  Mary;    On  the 

Answers  to  the  Objections.     Jaugey:    Head,  Trinity. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  7>l7 

as  single,  definite  parts  of  his  body.  As  a  definite 
personality  He  did  not  have  more  eyes  than  we  have, 
or  more  arms,  more  hearts,  etc.  If  the  transubstantia- 
tion  took  place  at  the  Last  Supper,  how  could  all  the 
apostles  present  receive  him  equally  and  completely? 
Do  not  point  here  to  the  omnipotence  of  God,  for  as 
we  have  seen  above,  God  does  not  bring  about  contra- 
dictions, and  therefore,  would  not  make  Christ  at 
the  same  time  into  one  and  thirteen  definite  physi- 
cal personalities,  even  supposing  that  only  the  twelve 
apostles  were  present  on  that  occasion  to  partake  of 
the  Last  Supper. 

Furthermore,  if  the  doctrine  of  Romanism  be  true, 
and  Christ  on  that  occasion  was  mortal  and  percep- 
tible by  the  senses,  and  His  body  not  yet  endowed 
with  the  glorious  gifts  it  now  possesses,  then  the  apos- 
tles would  receive  His  body  and  blood  as  Christ  pos- 
sessed them  at  the  time,  that  is  to  say,  solid  flesh  ex- 
tended in  space,  as  any  other  body ;  for  if  Romanism 
says  that  they  took  it  in  a  spiritual  and  supernatural 
way,  and  not  the  physical  and  external  body  before 
them,  then  Romanism  capitulates  to  Protestantism, 
which  holds  that  Christ  is  present  morally  and  spir- 
itually, though  truly  and  concretely.  I  beg  the  reader 
to  examine  carefully  these  arguments,  and  he  will  see 
that  it  is  against  reason  to  believe  that  the  apostles 
could  receive  the  material  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
that  Holy  Communion. 

The  same  objection,  as  leading  to  no  conclusion, 
can  be  applied  to  the  doctrine,  after  the  resurrection 
and  glorification  of  Christ;  for  although  His  divine 
body  possesses  the  glorious  gifts,  it  exists  individually 


318  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

as  one.  The  comparisons  that  some  Romanists  bring 
forward,  as  for  instance,  that  the  sun  22  although  be- 
ing a  single  object,  is  yet  seen  by  us  all  completely 
and  entirely,  and  that  the  voice,  although  an  entity, 
may  be  heard  entirely  by  a  multitude  of  persons,  are 
not  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  anyone  with  even 
a  small  knowledge  of  philosophy.  For  those  are  ex- 
amples of  vibration,  where  every  wave  leads  back  to 
an  initial  impulse ;  but  we  are  dealing  with  an  entirely 
different  question,  of  how  a  body  existing  as  a  physi- 
cal unity — never  forget  that — can  be  partaken  of  en- 
tirely and  at  the  same  time  by  millions  of  men.  If 
this  is  not  a  manifest  contradiction,  then  we  do  not 
know  what  may  be  called  contradiction. 

We  meet  with  the  same  difficulties  when  we  con- 
sider the  act  and  the  disappearance  of  the  sacrament. 
In  the  act  there  appears  annihilation,23  since  the  bread 
and  the  wine  return  to  nothing,  a  supposition  which 
contradicts  the  general  principle  that  God  creates  or 
annihilates  nothing;  and  it  follows  therefrom,  ac- 
cording to  Romanism,  that  the  body  and  the  blood  of 
Christ  disappear  when  the  sacramental  elements  of 
bread  and  wine  disappear.24  So  that  these  being  mere 
accidences,  determine  the  subsistence  or  disappearance 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  In  order  the  better 
to  see  the  series  of  philosophical  absurdities  to  which 
this  reasoning  leads,  it  must  be  remembered  that  these 

22  Father  Manuel  Malo  :    Eucharistic  Manual. 

23  Cardinal  Vives,  Bertier,  Hurter,   etc.,  etc. :    On  the  Eu- 
charist. 

24  Billuart,  Perrone,  P.  Fernandez,  etc.,  etc. :    On  Transub- 
stantiation. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  3IO, 

elements  are  not  the  subject  in  which  the  body  25  and 
blood  of  Christ  is  contained,  since  that  body  and 
blood  are  received  with  the  corresponding  supposition 
that  they  are  Christ. 

Moreover,  these  elements  remain  without  subject, 
and  one  of  the  most  hotly  discussed  questions  26  in  the 
Romanist  theology  is  to  assign  the  corresponding  sub- 
ject to  these  elements.  If  this  entire  doctrine  is  ex- 
amined impartially  and  critically,  it  will  be  seen  that 
such  transubstantiation  cannot  be  admitted  either  on 
Biblical,  theological  or  philosophical  grounds. 

About  the  other  four  sacraments  it  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  say  anything.27  Romanism  bases  the  sacra- 
ment of  marriage  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  present  at 
the  marriage  of  Cana,  and  further  by  His  words :  Quod 
Deus  conjunxit,  homo  non  separet  (That  which  God 
hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder).  But 
the  various  views  held  agree  neither  as  to  the  form, 
nor  the  minister,  nor  even  as  to  the  constituent  es- 
sentials, as  some  hold  that  Christ  instituted  it  when 
He  was  present  at  the  marriage  of  Cana ;  others,  when 
He  uttered  the  above  words,  and  others  again  after  the 
Resurrection.  The  sacraments  of  confirmation  and 
of  extreme  unction  are  based  on  those  passages  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the 
apostles  laid  their  hands  on  those  who  had  already 
been  baptized;  and  on  the  words  of  St.  James,  who 

28  Cardinal  Vives,  Bertier,  Hurter,  etc.,  etc. :  On  the  Eu- 
charist. 

26  Billuart,  Casanova :  On  the  Eucharist.  Jaugey :  Head, 
Eucharist., 

37  Cardinal  Vives,  Bertier,  Hurter,  etc.,  etc. :    De  Deo  Re- 
demptore. 
22 


320  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

commands  the  apostles  to  anoint  and  pray  for  the  sick. 
But  as  these  are  not  necessary  for  salvation,  accord- 
ing to  Romanism,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
practical  obstacle  to  the  union  of  Romanists  and 
Protestants.  The  sacrament  of  ordination  being  ad- 
mitted by  Protestants  as  an  ecclesiastical  institution, 
at  least  in  its  main  features,  it  would  matter  little  to 
change  the  name  in  preserving  the  thing. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

PURGATORY   AND   THE    MASS. 

AMONG  the  Romanist  doctrines  there  is  none,  per- 
haps, which  seems  to  have  less  foundation,  either 
on  Biblical  grounds  or  for  theologic  reasons,  than  that 
of  purgatory.  Being  as  it  is  a  purely  ecclesiastical  in- 
vention, it  partakes  of  the  qualities  of  its  origin.  It  is 
a  heterogeneous  mixture  of  affirmations,  so  discor- 
dant and  contradictory,  even  for  Romanism,  that  it  is 
sufficient  to  gather  together  the  opinions  of  the  prin- 
cipal saints  and  the  foremost  theologians  in  order  to 
be  convinced  that  not  even  Romanism  knows  what  to 
make  out  of  this  dogma.1  We  shall  first  formulate 
here  the  dogma  of  purgatory,  and  then  we  shall  refute 
the  slight  biblical  grounds  on  which  it  pretends  to 
found  its  existence. 

Is  there  a  purgatory?  Romanism  proclaims  as  an 
article  of  faith  it  does  exist,  at  the  Councils  of  Flor- 
ence and  Trent.2  And  here  we  come  upon  the  first 
stumbling-block.  Romanism  admits  that  it  can  pro- 
claim as  a  dogma  only  that  which  is  found  clearly 
stated  in  the  Bible  or  that  which  has  been  unwaver- 
ingly and  unanimously  handed  down  by  Romanist  tra- 

1  Read  Bertier :  Theological  Compendium ;  head,  Purga- 
tory. 

2  Consult  the  Canons  of  said  Council. 

(321) 


2,22  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

dition  as  a  truth  received  from  the  apostles.3  The 
slight  biblical  foundation,  as  we  shall  see,  does  not 
authorize  Romanism  to  establish  an  entire  dogma 
like  that  of  purgatory.  Is  it  authorized  to  do  so  by 
tradition?  Tradition  is  very  far  from  being  unani- 
mous and  unwavering  on  this  point.  A  sub-apostolic 
father  like  St.  Irenaeus  denies  its  existence.  As  wise 
a  Father  as  St.  Augustine,  living  at  the  advanced  pe- 
riod of  the  fifth  century,  speaks  of  the  existence  of  pur- 
gatory as  something  admissible  and  probable  but  not 
an  assured  dogmatic  truth.4  And  here  we  have  one  of 
the  greatest  inconsistencies  of  Romanism.  It  cannot 
but  confess  that  the  depository  of  revelation  was 
closed  with  the  apostles.5  When  accused  by  Reform- 
ism that  it  has  introduced  innovations,  proclaiming 
dogmas  which  are  not  found  in  the  Bible,  Romanism 
says  very  self-complacently :  Although  they  are  not 
found  in  the  Bible,  we  have  received  them  as  coming 
from  the  apostles  through  unanimous  and  uninter- 
rupted tradition.  And  when  it  is  confronted  with 
testimony  to  the  contrary  by  men  like  Origen,  Tertul- 
lian,  St.  Augustine  and  others  on  this  and  similar 
questions,  it  exclaims :  Ah,  if  these  men  did  not  think 
as  we  do,  there  are  others  who  did,  and  that  is  suffi- 
cient.   We  see  here  that  the  unity  and  uninterrupted- 

3  Read  Councils  of  Trent  and  Vatican,  head,  De  Traditione. 
Perrone:  De  Vera  Religione.  Hettinger,  Hurter:  Theology, 
same  head. 

4  Read  St.  Augustine's  comments  on  I  Corinthians  iii.  15. 
These  are  his  words :  "Such  a  belief  (as  the  existence  of  ex- 
piatory purgatory)  is  not  incredible,  but  its  existence  is  cer- 
tainly discussable,"  (Incredibile  non  est  utrum  ita  sit  quaeri 
potest). 

°Jaugey:  Head,  Revelation.  Cardinal  Vives,  Hurter,  Per- 
rone, etc. :    Same  head. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  323 

ness  to  which  Romanism  appeals  is  not  the  unity  and 
uninterruptedness  taught  by  logic  and  proclaimed  by 
sane  criticism,  but  a  kind  of  puppet  with  a  multiplicity 
of  heads,  which  Romanism  exhibits  to  its  faithful, 
discovering  to  them  now  one  face  and  now  another, 
like  the  exhibits  of  a  wandering  showman.  This  pro- 
cedure is  very  convenient,  but  it  is  far  from  being 
rational   and   serious. 

Our  statement  gains  further  in  strength,  if  we  bear 
in  mind  that  both  St.  Augustine  and  Origen  were 
deeply  versed  in  the  entire  Catholic  doctrine.  Who 
would  dare  to  cast  a  doubt  upon  the  profound  knowl- 
edge of  all  matters  pertaining  to  Catholicism  of  wise 
men  like  St.  Augustine?  Who  was  more  at  home  in 
the  Bible  and  in  tradition  than  he?  And  if  he,  who 
knew  so  well  both  these  sources  of  truth,  did  not  pro- 
claim the  existence  of  purgatory  as  something  certain 
and  dogmatic,  this  was  a  clear  indication  that  the  doc- 
trine of  purgatory,  as  such,  did  not  proceed  from  the 
apostles.  And  if  it  did  not  proceed  from  the  apostles, 
how  can  an  opinion  like  this  develop  and  be  trans- 
formed into  a  dogma? 

Here  the  Romanists  are  getting  into  a  blind  alley. 
They  admit  that  infallibility  is  neither  an  inspiration 
nor  authorizes  an  innovation.6  This  prerogative  au- 
thorizes Romanism  to  promulgate  as  dogmas,  those 
truths  alone  which  are  clearly  contained  in  the  deposi- 
tory of  revelation,  namely,  the  Gospels.  How,  then, 
can  an  opinion  develop  and  be  transformed  into  an  un- 

9  Cardinal  Gibbons :  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  The  Pope's  In- 
fallibility. Casanova,  Hettinger,  Hurter,  Perrone,  Schouppe : 
Same  head. 


324  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

assailable  and  dogmatic  doctrine?  On  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  infallible  Pope?  No,  because  infallibility 
is  neither  inspiration  nor  innovation.  Through  tra- 
dition? No,  because  witnesses  as  authoritative  as 
St.  Augustine  hold  that  this  doctrine  is  not  a  certainty 
but  is  merely  an  opinion.7  Do  not  say  to  us  here  that 
other  holy  fathers  believe  in  it  as  a  certainty ;  for  aside 
from  declaring  thereby  that  the  testimony  of  the 
others  is  better  and  worth  more  than  that  of  St.  Au- 
gustine— a  statement  that  could  not  stand  before  seri- 
ous criticism — we  should  arrive  at  the  admission  that 
the  tradition  is  neither  unanimous  nor  continuous,  a 
statement  that  would  cut  the  supports  from  under  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  tradition.  Therefore, 
if  Romanism  thinks  that  it  is  sufficient  if  some  be- 
lieve— while  others  may  hold  different  views — in  or- 
der that  the  tradition  may  be  called  unanimous  and 
uninterrupted,  then  it  may  happen  that  some  day  we 
may  meet  with  a  Pope  ready  to  expound  to  us  the 
dogma  of  millenarianism,  since  there  were  saints  like 
Irenaeus  who  believed  in  it  and  held  it  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  apostles.8  Such  a  mode  of  argument 
is  far  from  the  seriousness  demanded  by  true  criti- 
cism, and  the  directness  demanded  by  logic.  This  kind 
of  weathercock  tradition,  which  means  one  thing  for 
one  party  and  another  thing  for  another,  which  is 
not  one  but  many,  which  is  continuous  according  to 
one  concept  and  interrupted  according  to  another,  may 
serve  to  build  card  houses,  but  not  to  establish  so 

7  Same  authority  and  head  as  note  4. 

8  Read    Baronio    and   Rohrbacher:     On    St.    Irenaeus;     St. 
Irenaeus  himself  can  be  read  in  Migne. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  325 

serious  a  matter  as  a  dogma  of  faith.  But  let  us  pro- 
ceed with  our  discussion.  What  does  Romanism  know 
about  purgatory?  The  kind  reader  may  now  prepare 
to  witness  a  show  of  moving  pictures,  for  I  can  find 
no  better  term  to  describe  the  heterogeneous  mass  of 
opinions  regarding  this  unfortunate  but  lucrative 
dogma  in  the  Roman  theology.  Let  us  examine  it 
more  closely.  Is  there  a  place  in  the  universe  for  pur- 
gatory, distinct  from  hell  and  heaven?  There  is 
none,  answer  some,  except  that  hell  itself  serves  both 
for  the  lost  and  for  the  elect  who  there  purge  them- 
selves of  their  sins.9  Yes,  it  does  exist,  answer  others, 
and  it  is  a  place  intermediate  between  heaven  and 
hell.10  That  is  not  so,  say  yet  others,  since  there  is 
neither  a  heaven  nor  a  hell,  nor  a  purgatory.  There  is 
no  special  place  except  as  it  pleases  God  to  appoint 
one  where  the  soul  shall  suffer  for  its  sins,  and  it 
might  be  that  God  would  assign  to  the  soul  its  own 
hearth  and  its  own  habitation  as  the  place  where  to 
expiate  its  sins.11  And  between  these  conflicting  af- 
firmations and  negations  the  Romanist  is  more  in  the 
dark  as  to  the  location  of  purgatory,  than  is  the  Prot- 
estant, who  does  not  weary  himself  with  seeking  for 
it,  because  he  knows  that  it  does  not  exist. 

What  do  souls  suffer  in  purgatory?  Oh,  answer 
some,  the  most  horrible  punishments,  the  same  kinds 
of  punishment  as  the  lost,  but  alleviated  by  the  hope 

9  S.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio:    Obras  Dogmaticas,  vol.  vii, 
p.  266. 

10  The  majority  of  Roman  Theologians  agree  that  this  opin- 
ion is  called  "common  opinion." 

11  St.  Thomas,  St.  Francis  de  Sales,  Sta.  Catalina  de  Bo- 
lonia  are  of  the  same  opinion. 


326  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

that  they  will  come  to  an  end  in  time.12  That  is  not 
so,  answer  others,  these  are  not  the  punishments  of 
hell,  but  analogous  to  them,  yet  terrible.13  It  is  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other,  say  the  third  disputants ;  for  the 
souls  in  purgatory  there  is  no  punishment  of  the  flesh, 
there  is  neither  fire  nor  any  other  sensible  pain,  but 
only  the  pain  of  being  condemned,  the  unutterable 
longing  to  possess  God.14 

Choose  whichever  opinion  most  appeals  to  you,  for 
not  only  are  they  all  Romanist,  but  also  with  each 
one  you  may  say  that  Romanism  knows  as  little  about 
the  kinds  of  punishments  as  it  does  about  the  place. 

What  are  the  relations  of  the  souls  in  purgatory  to 
us?  Oh,  excellent,  say  some,  as  they  can  see  us  and 
we  can  see  them,  they  can  hear  us  and  we  can  take 
them  for  our  mediators  with  God.15  Do  not  believe 
that,  say  others,  they  can  neither  be  seen  nor  can  they 
see.  Do  not  call  upon  them,  for  since  they  cannot 
plead  for  themselves,  neither  can  they  plead  for  you.16 
Thus  between  the  affirmations  of  some,  and  the  de- 
nials of  others,  the  believer  does  not  get  any  definite 
information,  theoretically.  I  say  theoretically,  for  in 
practice  all  the  disputants  dwell  on  the  benefits  which 
the  souls  derive  from  their  sufferings  in  purgatory, 
and  how  grateful  these  souls  are  to  the  faithful  who 
pray   for  them,   especially   if   such   prayer  takes   the 

12  This  is  the  opinion  of  St.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio  and 
others. 

"This  is  the  opinion  of  nearly  all  theologians. 

"St.  Francis  de  Sales,  Sta.  Catalina  de  Bolonia,  and  the 
majority  of  Greek  writers,  are  of  this  opinion. 

16  St.  Alfonso  Ma.  de  Ligorio  and  others. 

18  St.  Thomas  and  others. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  327 

form  of  responses  and  masses ;  as  these  are  generally- 
paid  for,  they  are  the  most  beneficial  and  commend- 
able practices.  And  there  we  come  upon  the  most 
knotty  point  of  the  question.  What  relation  is  there 
between  the  souls  in  purgatory,  God,  the  sacrifices  and 
prayers?  For  anyone  well  versed  in  Roman  theology 
the  answer  is  a  kind  of  hieroglyphic  which  can  hardly 
be  deciphered  theoretically  as  far  as  ideas  are  con- 
cerned ;  but  practically  and  as  regards  actions  it  is  a 
most  abundant  spring  at  which  the  thirsty  Romanist 
may  quaff  in  deep  draughts. 

Roman  theology  teaches  that  death  ends  the  period 
for  performing  meritorious  acts.17  The  souls,  there- 
fore, can  do  nothing  meritorious ;  yet  they  practice 
in  a  heroic  degree  the  virtues  of  faith,  hope  and  char- 
ity. This  means  that  although  these  most  sublime 
virtues  are  practiced  in  a  real  way,  such  practice  does 
not  carry  with  it  the  reward  which,  Romanism  teaches, 
elsewhere  always  accompanies  every  supernatural  act 
performed  through  grace.18  The  souls  can  do  nothing 
meritorious;  and  yet,  according  to  the  strict  rules  of 
justice,  they  deserve  that  their  sentence  should  end.10 
They  can  do  nothing  meritorious,  and  yet  the  merits 
of  others  may  be  applied  to  them.  Anyone  capable  of 
coordinating  this  entire  series  of  incoherencies  could 
carry  off  the  first  prize  in  any  international  riddle 
contest.    But  let  us  go  a  step  further  and  see  how  the 

17  Casanova,  Hettinger,  Hurter,  Perrone,  Schouppe  in  their 
respective  Theologies ;    head,  De  Novissimis. 

18  Any  Roman  author  speaking  of  the  souls  in  purgatory. 

19  Read  any  Roman  author  regarding  the  satisfaction  of  the 
souls  in  purgatory. 


328  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

Roman  doctrine  not  only  blasphemes  the  justice  of 
God,  but  also  robs  men  of  their  worldly  goods. 

Ask  Romanism :  Do  the  sacrifices  which  the  faith- 
ful pay  to  you  in  order  that  you  may  apply  them  for 
the  benefit  of  the  souls  in  purgatory,  help  them  for 
certain  or  not?  If  they  do  then  the  wicked  and  the 
rich  who  have  left  many  pious  bequests  before  their 
death,  or  whose  heirs  pay  for  many  masses  and  re- 
sponses, go  quickly  to  heaven ;  while  the  poor  and  the 
humble,  who  cannot  leave  anything  for  the  benefit  of 
their  souls,  are  forced  to  remain  for  a  longer  time  in 
purgatory.  This  is  to  say  that  the  eternal  justice  of 
God  is  bought  and  sold  as  radishes  are  bought  and 
sold  in  the  market  place.  Can  there  be  any  greater 
blasphemy  of  the  righteousness  and  impartiality  of  the 
infinite  justice  of  the  Eternal  One?  And  if  the  sacri- 
fices are  of  no  special  benefit  to  the  individual  soul  for 
whom  they  are  made,  then  why  deceive  faithful  ones, 
impressing  upon  them  the  efficacy  of  particular  inten- 
tions when  applied  to  a  special  soul?  Why  insist  so 
strongly  that  it  is  most  helpful  to  say  a  mass  for  the 
liberation  of  one  single  soul?  In  both  of  these  cases 
Romanism  is  again  caught  in  a  blind  alley.  In  the 
first  it  tramples  upon  Divine  justice,  and  in  the  sec- 
ond it  deceives  the  faithful.  It  does  not  avail  here  to 
appeal  to  the  doctrine  of  St.  Thomas,20  who  holds  that 
the  sacrifices  are  applied  as  God  wills  it,  for  the  diffi- 
culty is  not  thereby  removed.  If  the  individual  sac- 
rifices benefit  in  particular  the  faithful  in  whose  name 
they  are  made,  then  the  rich  are  favored,  and  a  slur 

20  Read  St,  Thomas  on  this  subject, 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     329 

is  cast  upon  the  justice  of  God.  If  they  do  not  bene- 
fit the  designated  souls,  then  your  sincerity  and  hon- 
esty with  the  faithful  is  at  fault.  Therefore  instead 
of  preaching  so  much  on  the  excellency  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  mass  for  the  liberation  of  the  souls,  you  should 
say  to  the  faithful :  You  pay  in  order  that  the  soul 
in  which  you  are  interested  may  be  redeemed;  but 
honesty  compels  us  to  say  that  the  sacrifice  in  which 
you  believe  may  not  be  applied  according  to  your  in- 
tentions. It  may  be  applied  elsewhere,  for  the  divi- 
sion of  the  gift  rests  with  God  only. 

The  doctrine  of  purgatory  appears  still  more  ridicu- 
lous if  we  examine  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  itself. 
The  Romanists  say,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on 
the  cross  was  sufficient  for  the  redemption  of  this 
world  and  thousands  and  millions  of  other  worlds.  If 
that  be  the  case,  why  repeat  a  sacrifice  which  has  been 
sufficiently  completed?  Why  assume  that  thousands 
and  millions  of  priests  repeat  the  sacrifice  of  the 
cross  in  a  bloodless  rite,  when  the  first  sacrifice  was 
everlasting  and  sufficient  and  nothing  can  be  added 
to  it?  Oh,  if  it  were  not  for  the  stipend  of  the  masses, 
if  this  sacrifice  were  not  one  of  the  most  general  and 
prolific  sources  of  income  of  hungry  Romanism,  it 
certainly  would  not  fasten  upon  a  practice  opposed  to 
the  Bible  and  to  reason.  Read  St.  Paul 21  and  you 
will  see  that  there  is  no  other  priest  but  Christ  and  no 
other  sacrifice  but  that  of  His  passion.  But  it  was 
deemed  expedient  to  have  the  faithful  contribute  the 
mass  money,  and  so  there  was  formulated  an  entire 

21  Hebrews  ix.  15,  25-27;    vii.  27;    x.  10. 


330  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

theology,  dealing  with  the  second  redemption  and  the 
second  sacrifice.  And  proclaiming  that  all  and  each 
of  the  masses  have  an  infinite  efficacy  and  therefore 
a  single  one  of  them  is  sufficient  for  the  liberation  of 
all  the  souls,22  Romanism  invented  the  series  of  three, 
seven  and  thirty  masses  to  be  applied  to  the  liberation 
of  a  soul.  And  when  asked  for  the  reason  of  this  con- 
tradiction, it  replies  that  the  application  rests  with  God 
and  is  not  within  the  power  of  the  faithful  nor  the 
priest.23 

Let  us  examine  for  a  moment  the  patent  theological 
contradiction  involved  in  this  doctrine.  According  to 
the  Romanists  not  only  is  the  mass  efficacious  in  it- 
self, but  it  is  also  infinitely  extensive  in  application. 
Very  well,  then :  if  its  entire  efficacy  applies,  then  one 
single  mass  would  be  an  all-sufficient  sacrifice  for  the 
liberation  of  all  the  souls.24  And  if  God  does  not  ap- 
ply it  all,  how  can  we  reasonably  explain  why  He  pre- 
serves for  Himself  a  part  of  its  efficacy?  What  ra- 
tional or  humanitarian  objects  are  obtained  by  such 
restrictions  ? 

Furthermore  we  come  upon  the  following  philo- 
sophical contradiction :  Something  infinite,  from  which 
a  part  is  taken  away,  produces  one  of  the  two  follow- 
ing alternatives :  first,  If  after  a  part  taken  away  from 
the  infinite  it  remain  still  infinite,  then,  if  the  part 
taken  from  it  is  added  again,  we  would  have  the  in- 
finite plus  the  part  added  to  it ;  or  second,  if  after  you 

^Bertier,  Vives,  Schouppe  and  other  Roman  authors,  when 
speaking  on  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass. 

23  This  is  the  opinion  of  nearly  all  the  followers  of  St. 
Thomas'  school. 

24  Read  Bertier  on  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  33 1 

take  a  part  away  from  the  infinite  the  remainder  be- 
comes then  finite,  you  will  have  the  deduction  that  the 
infinite  can  be  constituted  by  aggregating  parts  of 
finite  thing,  and  neither  of  these  two  assumptions 
is  admitted  in  good,  sound,  philosophical  reasoning.25 
Nor  will  it  avail  to  say  that  although  the  efficacy  is 
infinite  it  can  be  applied  finitely,  since  the  capacity  of 
the  souls  to  whom  it  is  applied  is  wanting.  Such  an 
affirmation  leaves  the  difficulty  unsolved,  since  the  effi- 
cacy of  one  single  mass  completely  absorbs,  as  we 
have  said,  the  power  of  reception  which  the  souls  pos- 
sess. Let  not  the  Romanist  deceive  himself.  Be  his 
answer  what  it  will,  purgatory  and  the  mass  appear, 
even  within  his  own  philosophy  and  theology,  as  a 
mixture  of  incoherencies  and  absurdities. 

Ah,  if  all  the  faithful  would  act  as  the  author  saw, 
not  a  year  and  a  half  ago,  a  simple  Mexican  Indian 
act,  then  this  absurd  business  would  soon  cease.  This 
Indian  came  with  a  serious  face  to  a  priest  and  asked 
him  to  say  mass  and  make  various  responses  for  ojie 
of  his  relatives.  The  priest  inquiring  of  what  class 
he  wished  them,  the  Indian  replied  that  they  should 
be  of  the  best.  Then  the  priest,  in  anticipation  of  a 
good  fee,  solemnly  chanted  the  mass  and  the  re- 
sponses. When  he  had  finished,  the  Indian  came  to 
him  again  and  asked:  "Well,  Father,  do  you  think 
that  the  mass  and  the  responses  have  helped  my  rela- 
tive?" The  priest,  thinking  that  the  more  he  exag- 
gerated, the  larger  the  fee  would  be,  extolled  to  him 
the  infinite  efficacy  of  the  mass  and  the  great  good  that 

25  Cardinal   Gonzalez  and  Zigliara :    On  the  conception  of 
the  Infinite.     Jaugey:    Same  head. 


332  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

was  done  by  the  responses.  Greatly  rejoiced  to  hear 
this,  the  Indian  continued:  'Then  you  think,  Father, 
that  my  relative  has  gone  to  heaven?"  ''You  may 
piously  believe  that,"  replied  the  priest.  "In  that  case, 
Father,  many  thanks,  and  may  all  go  well  with  you; 
for  if  he  has  left  purgatory,  it  matters  little  if  I  pay 
you  or  not,  and  if  he  should  return  to  purgatory  he 
would  be  a  great  fool.  So  good-bye."  With  that  he 
left,  not  paying  a  cent.26  If  those  who  pay  should 
disappear,  then  those  who  take  the  money  would  soon 
cease  to  perform  service. 

The  following  are  the  texts  on  which  Romanism 
pretends  to  found  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  A  pas- 
sage in  Maccabees,  where  it  is  said  that  Judas  Macca- 
baeus  gave  money  to  the  temple  in  order  that  the 
priests  might  offer  sacrifices  for  the  soldiers  who  had 
fallen  in  one  of  his  battles.  Quando  lex  non  distingait, 
neque  nos  distinguere  debemus  (If  the  law  does  not 
make  a  distinction,  we  cannot).  The  author  who 
wrote  those  words  did  not  apply  them  to  purgatory, 
but  to  the  general  resurrection.  He  says  distinctly  that 
Judas  Maccabaeus,  in  making  his  donation,  showed 
clearly  that  he  was  really  thinking  of  the  resurrection. 
Therefore,  even  if  Protestantism  believed  this  passage 
to  be  inspired,  it  could  interpret  the  same  in  a  sense 
contrary  to  Romanism. 

The  other  passage  is  the  one  saying  that  certain  sins 
cannot  be  forgiven,  either  in  this  or  in  the  other  life, 
and  it  seems  incredible  that  Romanism  should  dare 
to  cite  it  in  favor  of  its  doctrine  of  purgatory.    When 

*•  This  happened  in  the  Diocese  of  Puebla,  Mexico,  where 
I  was  present  and  witnessed  the  incident. 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  333 

this  text  is  held  up  as  contradicting  the  all-inclusive 
power  of  absolution  to  forgive  all  sins,  Romanism  re- 
plies :  this  text  is  a  hyperbole,  to  indicate  that  there 
are  some  sins  which  are  greater  than  others,  and 
some  the  gravest  of  all ;  it  must  not  be  taken  literally. 
We  admit  this  interpretation,  and  we  think  that  it  is 
a  good  one  to  support  us  in  saying  once  again  that  no 
appeal  to  the  Bible,  or  tradition,  or  theology,  can 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  purgatory. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE  ROMAN  DOCTRINE  AND  MAN  IN  HIS  TRIPLE  ASPECT 
— RELIGIOUS,  SCIENTIFIC  AND  SOCIAL. 

THERE  are  two  general  ways  in  which  Roman- 
ism may  be  studied.  One  of  these,  which  is 
partial  and  incomplete,  we  might  call  the  Roman  hy- 
pothesis.1 This  undertakes  to  conciliate  Romanism 
with  other  creeds,  rather  than  to  expound  fully  and 
frankly  its  doctrine;  seeking  the  limits  to  which  it 
may  go  without  too  manifestly  confusing  the  believer 
in  his  faith,  and  what  in  given  and  determined  cases 
the  nations  may  demand.  The  other  method,  which 
we  might  call  the  Romanist  thesis,  studies  its  doctrines 
in  their  entire  extent  and  significance,  expounding 
the  aims  and  ideals  of  Romanism,  its  true  spirit,  its 
complete  life  and  history.  As  the  expositors  of  this 
doctrine,  we  should  fall  short  of  the  truth  if  we  did 
not  proceed  according  to  the  second  method. 

What,  then,  does  the  Roman  thesis  teach  in  regard 
to  the  religious,  scientific  and  social  liberty  of  a  man  ? 
Far  from  agreeing  with  Cardinal  Gibbons  in  his 
Chapter  XVII,  we  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  liberty 
in  these  directions  is  incompatible  with  the  Romanist 
thesis,  that  the  affirmation  of  the  latter  necessarily  in- 
volves the  negation  of  the  former.  And  here  is  our 
answer  in  full : 

True  religious  liberty  is  incompatible  with  the  Ro- 
man thesis ;  scientific  liberty  is  condemned  by  Roman- 

1  Social  Sovereignty  of  Christ,  by  the  Jesuit  Father  Kamieri ; 
under  Roman  Thesis  and  Hypothesis. 

(334) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  335 

ism;  political  liberty  is  fighting  openly  with  the  Ro- 
manistic  beliefs.  We  are  fully  conscious  of  the  grav- 
ity of  our  three  protestations,  and  we  should  never 
have  dared  to  utter  them,  did  we  not  believe  that  we 
could  base  them  on  testimony  as  indubitable  as  that  of 
the  first  three  Popes,  who  according  to  the  Roman  be- 
lief, as  a  dogma  of  faith,  were  infallible. 

Religious  liberty  means  that  everyone  is  free  to 
choose  that  form  of  religion  which  his  conscience 
dictates  to  him.  This  liberty  presupposes  the  sacred 
inviolability  of  every  individual  conscience.  What 
does  Romanism  think  in  regard  to  this  innate  and 
sovereign  prerogative?  All  men  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes :  those  who  are  faithful  to  Romanism,  and 
those  who  are  not.  For  both  of  these  two  groups  the 
affirmations  of  the  Roman  Church  are  final  and  op- 
posed to  liberty.  That  Church  says  in  general,  refer- 
ring to  humanity  at  large : 2  ''Liberty  of  conscience 
is  an  abominable  liberty;  the  liberty  of  each  one  to 
choose  his  own  religion  is  a  liberty  of  perdition.3  Ev- 
ery man  born  on  this  planet  has  the  sacred  obligation 
of  being  subject  to  me.4  I  alone  am  the  true  one.  I 
alone  am  divine ;  outside  of  me  there  is  no  salvation.5 

2  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX :  Encyclical  of  Leo  XIII,  under 
Libertas.  On  account  of  the  gravity  of  the  matters  discussed 
in  this  chapter,  we  consider  it  is  our  duty  to  literally  copy 
many  testimonials  translated  into  English  and  which  we  will 
reproduce  in  Latin  in  the  appendix.  "We  condemn  the  doc- 
trine that  teaches  that  every  man  has  the  right  to  choose  his 
religion  and  form  of  worship,  and  that  the  State  must  re- 
spect such  a  right"  (Syllabus). 

8  The  same  documents. 

*  Jaugey  :  Heads,  Religion,  Church.  Cardinal  Gonzalez  and 
Zigliara:    head,  Theodicy  on  Religion. 

5  Bertier,  Cardinal  Vives,  Perrone :  On  the  True  Religion. 
23 


336  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

As  all  men  are  obliged  to  seek  their  salvation,  it  is 
therefore  the  duty  of  all  to  obey  me."  When  you  dis- 
cuss the  liberty  of  conscience  with  a  Roman  Catholic, 
be  careful  to  speak  in  general  terms,  lest  you  fall  into 
heresies.6  When  Romanists  express  themselves  in 
these  terms,  they  refer  to  the  other  religions  and  not 
to  their  own,  nor  to  the  obligation  with  which  every 
man  is  born  to  profess  Romanism.  The  Church  says 
to  the  incredulous,  to  the  heretic,  and  to  the  infidel: 
"You  are  free  to  leave  your  profession  and  to  adopt 
mine."  But  if  the  incredulous,  the  heretic,  and  the  in- 
fidel should  ask:  Are  we,  or  are  we  not  free  to  em- 
brace Romanism  ?  7  the  Church  would  answer :  "You 
are  not  free,  but  you  are  under  the  obligation  to  be- 
lieve in  me  and  to  obey."  Therefore  in  the  Roman 
sense  liberty  to  choose  one's  religion  does  not  exist, 
but  instead  is  the  absolute  obligation  to  become  a  Ro- 
man. Therefore,  when  you  read  in  His  Eminence 
Cardinal  Gibbons'  book,  at  the  beginning  of  Chapter 
XVII,  where  he  speaks  of  the  sacred  and  inviolable 
character  of  the  righteous  conscience,  you  should  sub- 
stitute the  word  Roman  for  the  word  righteous ;  and 
where  he  says  that  every  act  which  infringes  upon  this 
liberty  of  conscience  is  called  religious  intolerance, 
you  should  understand  him  to  mean,  if  that  intoler- 
ance proceeds  from  the  non-Romanists,  for  they  may 
assail  that  conscience  as  we  have  said  above,  and  will 
state  again. 

Only  thus  may  the  words  of  His  Eminence  Cardinal 

6  Pius  IX,  Syllabus. 

'Cardinal  Vives :    On  the  necessity  of  Religion.     Jaugey: 
Head,  Religion.    Herzier:    On  the  True  Religion. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  337 

Gibbons  be  explained  in  an  orthodox  sense ;  and  if  not 
explained  thus,  they  would  even  be  heretical,  unless 
he  has  in  mind  physical  liberty,  which  would  be  like 
taking  up  the  radish  by  the  leaves ;  for  if  he  is  talking 
of  physical  liberty,  then  we  are  free  to  make  ourselves 
into  Moors,  and  he  himself  into  a  Jew,  if  he  so 
chooses.  But  this  sort  of  reasoning  is  not  serious  nor 
fitting  for  theologians.  In  theology,  when  we  speak 
of  religious  liberty,  we  mean  moral  liberty,  not  that 
of  the  physical  act.  The  Roman  thesis,  then,  denies 
religious  liberty  to  those  outside  of  the  faith,  the  mo- 
ment it  proclaims  that  they  were  born,  not  free,  but 
with  the  obligation  to  believe  in  the  Roman  Church 
and  to  obey  her. 

For  the  faithful  the  slavery  is  much  greater.  On 
the  one  hand  the  Church  concedes  to  reason  the  power 
to  demonstrate  the  most  fundamental  truths ; 8  she 
proclaims  again  and  again  the  rational  and  scientific 
character  of  her  doctrine;  but  ill  advised  is  he  who 
should  think  that  she  would  thereby  concede  any  lib- 
erty to  him.  This  is  what  she  affirms :  he  who  dares 
to  doubt,  or  to  think  that  he  may  independently  inves- 
tigate the  Catholic  doctrine  in  order  to  find  out 
whether  he  shall  believe  or  not,  according  to  the  sci- 
entific result  of  his  investigations,  shall  be  excom- 
municated.9 Moreover,  among  the  faithful,  the  child 
is  baptized  within  a  few  days  of  its  birth,  and  there- 
fore the  possibility  of  a  free  investigation  is  excluded. 
No  investigation  before  baptism — since  that  is  impos- 
sible at  that  age ;  and  none  after  baptism — since  that 

8  Canons  of  the  Vatican  Council :    On  Reason  and  Faith. 
8  The  same. 


33&  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

would  mean  excommunication.  To  speak  of  religious 
liberty  within  Romanism  under  such  circumstances, 
is  the  height  of  absurdity  and  the  most  biting  sarcasm. 

And  here  history  enters  as  a  terrible  witness.  What 
caused  the  horrible  butcheries  of  the  Middle  Ages,  if 
not  the  negation  of  this  truth?  Who  equipped  the 
arm  of  Spain,  the  all-powerful  ruler  of  that  time,  for 
its  long  and  bloody  campaigns  in  Germany  and  Flan- 
ders, if  not  Romanism,  which  denied  that  truth? 
What  caused  the  butcheries  on  the  night  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew, and  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
if  not  the  Romanist  doctrine  regarding  that  truth? 
What  lighted  the  fires  of  the  Inquisition,  and  led  the 
specter  of  death  all  over  Europe,  if  not  just  that  tenet 
of  Romanism,  that  religious  liberty  does  not  exist? 
Therefore  to  proclaim  in  the  twentieth  century  that 
Romanism  believed  or  now  believes  in  religious  lib- 
erty is  both  anti-historical  and  anti-theological. 

Does  scientific  liberty  exist?  Here  the  Vatican 
claws  advance  still  further  in  order  to  strangle  human 
thought.  It  may  be  maintained  that  from  Origen  10 
to  Bacon,11  from  Bacon  to  Galileo,12  from  Galileo  to 
Darwin,  from  Darwin  to  Charcot 13  there  has  appeared 
no  savant  of  any  kind,  nor  any  truly  scientific  system, 
which  has  not  been  anathematized  by  Romanism.     As 

10  One  of  the  greatest  savants  of  history  of  ancient  times. 
He  was  condemned  by  the  Church. 

11  This  illustrious  Franciscan  was  imprisoned  and  perse- 
cuted.   Do  not  confound  him  with  Bacon  (Lord  Verulam). 

12  He  was  condemned  by  the  Roman  Inquisition. 

13  Hypnotism  was  denounced  many  times  as  diabolical,  by 
the  sacred  Congregations.  See  Cardinal  Vives :  Moral  Com- 
pendium, under  Hypnotism.  Also  Father  Franco:  Hypno- 
tism in  Style. 


CAriTULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  339 

our  object  here  is  merely  to  set  forth  the  kind  of  lib- 
erty which  Romanism  concedes  to  science  at  the  pres- 
ent moment,  we  shall  confine  our  illustrations  to  the 
latest  Roman  teachings. 

Is  philosophy  free  to  pursue  its  investigations?  No, 
the  Syllabus  condemns  such  liberty.  Is  geology 
free?14  No,  Pope  Pius  IX  has  condemned  such  lib- 
erty. Are  the  sciences  free  to  follow  their  methods  and 
conclusions?  No,  for  Romanism  is  afraid  of  them, 
and  has  condemned  their  independence  and  liberty.15 
The  Romanist  synthesis  regarding  science  is  as  fol- 
lows :  Philosopher,  you  may  freely  investigate  phil- 
osophical problems,  on  condition  that  you  never  deny 
any  of  my  conclusions;  for  if  that  should  happen  I 
should  condemn  you.  Geologist,  you  may  penetrate 
in  your  studies  into  the  recondite  and  mysterious  se- 
crets of  the  earth  and  life,  following  the  flight  of  the 
centuries,  but  only  on  condition  that  your  conclusions 
should  not  be  in  opposition  to  mine,  for  if  you  do  not 
succeed  thus,  I  shall  anathematize  you.  Savant,  who- 
ever you  may  be,  you  are  free  to  follow  your  chemical 
or  physical  or  biological  or  psychical  studies,  but  on 
condition  that  your  chemistry  and  your  physics  and 
your  biology  and  your  psychology  do  not  discredit  the 
affirmations  which  I  teach  elsewhere  in  regard  to  these 
sciences ;  for  if  you  do  I  shall  excommunicate  you. 

Now  you  see,  modern  savant,  what  judgment 
awaits  16  you,  if  you  do  not  resign  yourself  to  be  as 

14  Read  Pius  IX  :  Syllabus  ;  and  Pius  X  :  Bull  condemning 
Modernism,  which  condemns  the  doctrine  which  maintains 
that  the  Church  must  leave  philosophy  free  to  amend  itself, 

"The  same. 

16  Same  authors  and  heads, 


340  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

an  acolyte  of  Romanism,  if  you  are  not  disposed  to  be 
a  kind  of  page  to  the  Papacy,  if,  in  studying  the 
fossil  you  are  not  ready  to  decipher  its  riddles  in 
agreement  with  Romanism;  if  in  taking  up  the  bal- 
ances you  do  not  make  a  profession  of  faith  that  you 
will  not  look  for  anything  which  may  be  at  odds  with 
Romanism;  if  in  adjusting  the  telescope  you  do  not 
direct  it  with  the  intention  of  passing  by  that  to  which 
Romanism  is  opposed;  if  in  studying  the  great  prob- 
lems of  life  and  evolution  you  do  not  resign  yourself 
to  throw  out  all  that  Romanism  throws  out — far  from 
being  free,  your  endeavors  will  be  condemned  as  he- 
retical by  Romanism.  Can  there  be  a  greater  degra- 
dation of  scientific  liberty?  Does  it  not  mean  to  take 
away  his  liberty,  if  the  savant  is  compelled  before 
proceeding  with  his  scientific  demonstration,  to  be- 
lieve in  certain  predetermined  truths  that  have  not 
yet  been  demonstrated?  Is  not  science  enslaved  and 
shackeled  in  its  august  and  humanitarian  mission,  if 
the  scientist  is  compelled,  before  proceeding  with  his 
studies,  to  make  profession  of  Romanist  faith,  and  en- 
joined during  his  investigations  never  to  lose  sight  of 
the  Romanist  canons,  throwing  out  all  that  is  opposed 
to  them?  Scientific  liberty  is  incompatible  with  the 
present  doctrine  of  Romanism.  Who  can  doubt  that, 
when  he  reads  the  two  most  important  documents  of 
the  Papacy,  the  Syllabus  of  Pius  IX  and  the  bull  of 
Pius  X  condemning  Modernism? 

Is  there,  at  least,  political  liberty?  Here  we  meet 
with  the  most  horrible  tyrannies.  Whoever  knows  in- 
timately the  Romanist  doctrine  on  this  point,  must  be 
astonished  that  any  people  loving  their  liberty  and  in- 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  34I 

dependence  dare  to  profess  Romanism.  For  Roman- 
ism there  is  only  one  sovereign  Lord,  entirely  indepen- 
dent, namely  God,  the  Supreme  Maker  of  all  things, 
and  another  Lord  equally  sovereign  and  independent, 
because  he  is  His  representative  on  earth,  namely  the 
Pope.17  All  the  others,  great  and  small,  nobles  and 
plebeians,  kings  and  vassals,  are  subject  to  the  Pope, 
who  may  rule  over  them  with  a  power  compared  with 
which  ancient  Roman  imperialism  and  the  autocracy 
of  the  czar,  are  as  mere  shadows. 

We  are  aware  of  the  gravity  of  our  affirmations, 
and  we  shall  demonstrate  them.  Romanism,  in  order 
to  make  itself  entirely  independent  of  every  other 
ruler  and  power,  reasons  as  follows  18 :  That  society  is 
the  most  perfect,  which  has  the  highest  aim  in  view 
and  the  most  perfect  means  of  attaining  it.  It  so 
happens  that  I,  Romanism,  alone  have  the  highest  of 
all  aims  in  view,  and  I  attain  to  it  by  the  most  perfect 
and  extraordinary  means ;  therefore  I  am  the  most 
perfect  of  all  societies,  and  the  most  independent.  No 
power  or  society  of  any  kind  can  exist  above  me  or 
beside  me ;  therefore  they  are  all  inferior  to  me ;  there- 
fore I  can  rule  over  them  all ;  all  are  obliged  to  obey 
me,  but  I  am  not  obliged  to  obey  anyone.     The  first 

17  Apologetic  Dictionary  of  the  Faith ;  heads,  Pope,  Church, 
and  State.  Bertier,  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  of  The- 
ology and  Canonical  Law :    Same  heads.  < 

18  Cardinal  Zigliara :  On  Ethics  of  Society.  Cardinal  Gon- 
zalez :  On  same.  Bertier,  Cardinal  Vives :  On  Rights  of  the 
Church.  Just  because  the  aim  of  the  Church  is  supernatural 
and  its  power  supreme,  it  follows  that  no  other  power  can 
hinder  or  restrain  the  liberty,  rights,  privileges,  etc.,  of  the 
Church. — Syllabus  and  Leo  XIII  Encyclical.  Therefore,  all 
the  baptized,  though  heretics  or  schismatics,  are  subject  to  the 
Church  by  which  they  can  be  constrained. — Cardinal  Vives. 


342  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  its  profession  of  abso- 
lute perfection  and  sovereign  independence  is  this : 
my  subjects  are  obliged  to  obey  me  before  obeying 
any  other  power;  my  functionaries  depend  entirely 
on  me  and  not  on  any  other  power.  Let  us  examine 
both  conclusions,  because  they  both  bear  grave  con- 
sequences. 

The  Roman  Catholic,  be  he  American,  French, 
Spanish,  English,  etc.,  is  obliged,  in  case  of  a  conflict 
between  any  of  the  powers  and  the  Pope,  to  obey  the 
latter  and  not  his  own  native  ruler.19  If  it  were 
within  the  limits  of  possibility  that  a  struggle  could 
arise  between  the  President  of  America,  and  the  then 
ruling  Pope,  every  Roman  Catholic  would  be  obliged 
to  side  with  the  latter  against  the  former.  The  Ro- 
man Catholic  can  yield  to  his  own  ruler  only  condi- 
tional obedience,  for  absolute  obedience  he  has  already 
yielded  to  the  Roman  Pontiff,  the  head  of  Christi- 
anity.20 Whenever  it  suits  him  he  can  release  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  from  his  oath  of  allegiance  to  his  own 
ruler,  and  can  depose  the  latter,  if  a  Catholic,  and  put 
some  one  else  in  his  place.21     Read  the  bulls  quoted, 

18  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  of  Canonical  Law,  Rights 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  Pope.  Pius  IX :  Syllabus.  Bertier : 
Compendium  of  Theology,  Rights  of  the  Church  in  relation 
to  the  State,  and  generally  all  Roman  authors.  "In  case  of 
disagreement  or  conflict,  it  is  for  the  Church  to  resolve,  and 
the  State  can  do  nothing  against  her."— Syllabus. 

20  Compendium  of  Canonical  Law,  Rights  of  the  Church  and 
of  the  Pope ;  same  Cardinal,  compendium  on  Morals,  under 
head,  Liberalism.  Sarda  and  Salvany:  Under  head,  "Liberal- 
ism is  a  Sin"  (approved  by  the  sacred  Congregations). 

21  The  best  known  bull,  entitled  In  Coena  Domini  (The 
Lord's  Supper),  still  in  force.  See  Gregory  VII's  bull,  which 
in  part  says :  "Act  in  such  a  manner,  I  beg  of  you  all  [speak- 
ing of  the  Bishops],  that  the  whole  world  shall  know,  that 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  343 

and  look  into  history.  There  is  no  nation  in  Europe 
which  has  not  suffered  numberless  times  from  this 
papal  invasion.  England  twice  or  three  times  before 
Henry  VIII;  Germany  more  than  six  times;  Italy 
countless  times  in  all  its  states ;  France,  on  more  than 
one  occasion ;  the  Spanish  states  numberless  times, 
the  sufferers  being  now  Navarre,  then  Aragon,  then 
Castile.22  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  one  of  the  fa- 
vorite prerogatives  of  Romanism.  If  it  does  not  exer- 
cise this  power  now,  that  is  not  because  it  has  re- 
nounced it,  but  because  it  can  no  longer  exercise  it.23 
We  challenge  every  Romanist  to  cite  a  single  docu- 
ment contradicting  this  statement,  and  we  refer  in  our 
notes  to  many  that  assume  this  power  to  be  still  in 
force.  Accordingly,  if  Romanism,  instead  of  being  in 
a  state  of  decadence,  were  progressing  and  acquiring 
fresh  predominance,  it  would  exercise,  as  formerly, 
its  power  of  releasing  its  faithful  from  their  oaths  of 
allegiance  to  their  own  sovereigns,  sowing  insubor- 
dination and  discord  among  the  peoples  whenever  it 
suited  the  Church's  convenience. 

We  leave  it  to  the  good  sense  of  the  American  peo- 
ple to  judge  of  the  consequences  that  follow  from  this 
truth :   every  nation  where  there  are  Romanists  has 

if  you  can  bind  and  unbind  even  in  heaven,  you  can  also  do 
so  on  earth,  take  away  and  give  empires,  kingdoms,  prince- 
doms, dukedoms,  marquisates,  earldoms  and  baronies,  and 
that  you  can  depose  all  of  them,  according  to  their  merits, 
you  can  grant  such  dignities  and  honors  to  whom  you  may 
deem  worthy." 

23  The  historians  Baronio,  Rohrbacher,  Rivas,  Alzog:  On 
the  Popes'  excommunications  of  princes;  and  it  will  be  seen, 
that  in  numerous  instances  they  exercised  that  tremendous, 
and  abusive  power. 

23  Leo  XIII:    Encyclicals. 


344  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

subjects  who  are  more  vassal  to  the  pope  than  to  their 
own  kings  or  presidents.  The  consequences  of  the 
independence  of  the  Roman  functionaries  are  still 
more  grave:  they  must  not  only  be  independent  of 
every  other  power  in  the  exercise  of  their  ministry, 
but  they  also  cannot  be  touched  in  any  way.24  The 
kings  cannot  insist  on  their  fulfilling  the  duties  of 
common  citizens.  Innumerable  times  the  Popes  have 
excommunicated  princes  who  have  sought  to  compel 
the  clergy  to  bear  the  general  burdens,  or  to  do  mili- 
tary service.25  Complementary  to  this  civic  indepen- 
dence, Romanism  has  proclaimed  the  ecclesiastical 
edict,  in  virtue  of  which  a  cleric  who  has  committed  a 
crime  of  whatever  nature,  be  it  even  adultery,  robbery 
or  murder,  cannot  be  brought  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  civil  court.26  The  faithful  who  accuses  him,  and 
the  magistrate  who  judges  him,  are  both  excommuni- 

24  Pius  IX :  Syllabus.  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  of 
Canonical  Law.  Rights  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Pope: 
"The  Church  and  the  ecclesiastics  enjoy  privileges  of  exemp- 
tion or  immunity  that  no  civil  authority  can  lessen  or  arro- 
gate to  itself." — Syllabus. 

25  Same  documents;  Compendium  on  Morals,  by  Cardinal 
Vives  and  Bertier :  On  Excommunications :  Clergymen  are 
exempted  from  military  service.  "We  excommunicate  anyone 
usurping  any  part  of  the  property  or  rights  belonging  to 
ecclesiastics":  besides  read  the  nth  and  12th  of  the  most 
severe  excommunications,  called  anathemas,  reserved  to  the 
Pope. 

28  Jaugey :  Head,  Ecclesiastical  Privileges.  Cardinal  Vives : 
Works  already  mentioned.  Ferraris:  Same  head.  Canonical 
Encyclopedia :  Same  head.  "It  belongs  to  ecclesiastical  privi- 
lege, to  decide  all  cases,  whether  criminal  or  civil,  concerning 
clerics.  We  condemn  the  doctrine  that  maintains  that  such 
privileges  can  be  restrained  or  assumed  by  governments. — 
Syllabus.  We  excommunicate  by  anathema  anyone  accusing  a 
cleric  before  a  civil  tribunal,  and  the  judge  who  will  hear  and 
decide  the  case." — Standing  excommunication  by  Pius  IX. 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  345 

cated.27  And  as  if  this  degree  of  independence  were 
not  sufficient,  it  is  also  made  to  cover  all  ecclesiastical 
property,  and  the  ruler,  be  he  king  or  president,  who 
should  demand  tribute,  would  be  declared  excom- 
municated as  a  usurper  of  ecclesiastical  property. 

And  then  there  is  that  famous  right  of  refuge,  in 
virtue  of  which  the  criminal  who  seeks  the  shelter  of  a 
church,  or  convent,  cannot  be  judged  by  the  civil  pow- 
ers, however  great  his  crime,  and  any  person  who 
should  undertake  to  violate  the  sacred  asylum,  by 
dragging  forth  the  criminal,  would  be  excommuni- 
cated.28 Let  His  Eminence  Cardinal  Gibbons  tell  us 
if  this  is  not  the  pith  and  essence  of  Romanism;  in 
the  notes  are  cited  proofs.  But  what  kind  of  govern- 
ment is  possible  for  the  civic  powers,  with  all  these 
Romanist  abuses  and  usurpations? 

If  we  examine  the  form  of  government  adopted  by 
Romanism,  and  the  latitude  allowed  to  it,  the  tyranny 
appears  still  more  glaring.  Romanism  says :  "As  I  am 
a  society  perfect  in  myself,  I  have  the  power  to  casti- 

27  Read  about  excommunications  in  force  in  any  Treatise 
on  Morals. 

28  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  on  Morals,  under  Excom- 
munications. Bertier  :  Same  work  and  head.  Bouix  :  Canon- 
ical Law,  Rights  of  Asylum  (Protection).  Jaugey:  Under 
Rights  of  Asylum  (Protection).  "All  Churches,  even  though 
not  consecrated,  its  porticos  and  aisles,  nay,  the  spot  on 
which  the  foundation  stone  is  placed,  the  bishop's  oratory, 
enjoy  the  privilege  of  refuge;  the  bishop's  palace;  the  cu- 
rate's home  and  the  clergy's  as  well  as  the  belfries  and  the 
cemeteries  also,  enjoy  the  same  privilege  if  they  are  within 
thirty  steps  of  the  Church.  When  the  Host  is  being  carried 
through  the  streets,  the  procession  also  enjoys  the  privilege 
of  refuge  or  asylum.  The  civil  powers  cannot  deny  nor  even 
curtail  such  privilege,  and  this  now  must  be  considered  as 
standing,  though  the  liberal  sects  may  protest  against  it." — 
Cardinal  Vives. 


34*5  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

gate,  not  only  with  spiritual  castigations,  but  also  with 
temporal  punishments."  29  The  power  called  by  them 
that  "of  the  sword,"  cannot  be  denied  to  the  Church, 
and  according  to  that  power,  it  can  not  only  present 
the  victims  to  the  arm  of  the  secular  law,  but  it  can 
also  imprison,  exile,  and  kill  them  through  the  power 
which  it  possesses.  We  cite  some  documents  for  the 
benefit  of  Your  Eminence.30  And  in  virtue  of  the 
latest  Romanist  utterances  the  Pope  is,  in  case  of 
necessity,  the  entire  Church. 

The  Pope  may  imprison,  exile  and  kill,  and  his  de- 
crees are  unalterable  and  without  appeal.31  As,  ac- 
cording to  Romanism,  the  Pope  stands  above  the  ec- 
clesiastical laws  and  procedures,  he  may  imprison, 
exile  and  kill,  without  regard  to  the  laws  of  the 
Church,  for  he  stands  above  them ;  without  regard  to 
any  rules  of  procedure,  for  he  stands  above  them; 
without  any  regard  to  natural  rights,  for  he  alone  is 
the  authentic   interpreter,   and  no   one   can   interfere 

28  Bertier :  Compendium  of  Theology  of  the  Church.  Car- 
dinal Vives :  Compendium  of  Theology  and  of  Canonical 
Law,  same  head. 

^Bertier:  Of  the  Church.  Cardinal  Vives:  Rights  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  Pope.  Ferraris :  Canonical  Encyclopedia : 
Under  Church,  and  Pope.  Bouix :  Canonical  Law,  on  the 
Church  and  on  the  Pope.  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bonaventure : 
On  the  rights  of  the  Pope  and  of  the  Church.  Bull,  In  Coena 
Domini  (The  Lord's  Supper),  and  Gregory  VIFs  bull. 

31  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  of  Canonical  Law,  Rights 
of  the  Pope.  The  Church  can  by  herself  impose  temporal 
penalties,  as  deportation,  imprisonment,  etc. — Bertier.  Further- 
more, she  can  inflict  the  death  penalty,  but  such  a  preroga- 
tive is  invested  only  in  the  Pope  and  in  the  General  Councils. 
According  to  Tarquin  and  many  other  doctors  of  divinity, 
anyone  venturing  to  deny  it  would  incur  the  gravest  censures, 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  347 

with  him.32  Can  anything  more  horrible  and  atrocious 
be  imagined? 

His  Eminence  Cardinal  Gibbons  need  not  say  to  us, 
that  although  the  Popes  have  such  a  power,  they  will 
never  do  these  things,  for  history  tells  us  that  more 
than  one  Pope  has  been  a  close  second  to  the  abom- 
inable tyrants.33  Moreover,  for  a  philosopher,  it  is 
sufficient  that  the  doctrine  is  derogatory  to  human 
dignity,  in  order  to  denounce  it.  See  to  what  state  our 
liberty  has  been  reduced,  when  the  despot  of  the  Vati- 
can, if  he  so  chooses,  has  power  to  imprison,  exile  and 
kill  us,  without  regard  to  human  or  divine  law.  And 
this  power  is  all-inclusive,  reaching  from  Your  Emi- 
nence, Cardinal  of  the  Holy  Church,  down  to  me,  her 
simple  priest;31  from  the  most  powerful  monarch 
down  to  the  most  humble  subject. 

The  state  of  slavery  is  still  more  absolute,  if,  instead 
of  considering  ourselves  as  individuals,  we  consider 
ourselves  as  communities  and  nations.  There  cannot 
be  anything  more  sarcastic  and  hypocritical  than  the 
amphibologous  language  in  which  Leo  XIII  promises 
sovereignty  to  the  secular  princes.  In  the  first  place 
the  Pope  35  is  very  careful  not  to  renounce  any  of  the 
ecclesiastical  prerogatives  indicated  above,  such  as  the 
privilege  of  decrees,  the  right  of  refuge,  exemption 
from  taxation  of  Church  property,  and  from  civic  du- 

32  Bertier :     Compendium    of    Theology,    under    heads,    the 
Church,  and  the  Pope. 

33  Read  the  life  of  Alexander  VI  by  Jaugey,  in  his  Apolo- 
getic Dictionary  of  Faith. 

34  Cardinal  Vives :    Compendium  of   Canonical  Law,  under 
Rights  of  the  Pope. 

30  Leo  XIII :    Encyclical   Immortale  Dei  Libertas  Sapiential 
Christiana?. 


348  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

ties  on  the  part  of  functionaries  of  the  Church,  where- 
by he  considerably  curtails  the  sovereignty  of  the 
states.  He  has  further  been  careful  not  to  declare 
annulled  the  right  of  releasing  subjects  from  their 
oaths  of  allegiance,  nor  has  he  renounced  the  power 
to  depose  the  kings,  in  a  case  of  necessity,  their  power 
thereby  remaining  conditional  and  not  being  sover- 
eign. We  see  how  the  small  power  conceded  to 
princes  is  still  further  shorn  by  Romanism,  so  as  to 
make  it  laughable  and  ridiculous.  Romanism  affirms 
that  the  individuals  not  only  as  such,  but  also  collec- 
tively as  nations,  shall  believe  in  the  Roman  faith.36 

Governments  are,  with  respect  to  the  Pope,  like  any 
single  one  of  the  faithful.  Similarly  the  kings  are, 
according  to  ecclesiastical  laws,  nothing  more  than 
vassals,  simple  believers.  Romanism  further  says 
that  while  the  ecclesiastical  legislative  power  is  abso- 
lutely free  and  sovereign,  the  secular  power  must 
submit  to  it,37  and  this  means  the  downfall  of  legis- 
lative sovereignty.  Romanism  proclaims,38  that  the 
instruction  of  the  people  is  one  of  the  first  necessities 

36  Pius  IX :  Syllabus.  Cardinal  Vives :  Works  mentioned 
above.  "We  condemn  the  doctrine  that  denies  that  nations 
and  kings  are  not  amenable  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction." — 
Cardinals  Zigliara  and  Gonzalez :    Ethics  of  Society. 

87  Cardinal  Vives :  Compendium  of  Canonical  Law,  Rights 
of  the  Pope,  and  of  the  Church.  Pius  IX :  Syllabus.  On 
questions  of  jurisdiction  and  morals,  and  on  mixed  questions, 
it  is  for  the  Church,  and  not  for  the  State,  to  decide  them. 

38  Same  authors  and  heads.  "We  condemn  the  doctrine  that 
teaches  that  the  State  is  free  and  independent  to  organize 
public  education  in  Schools,  Institutes,  and  Universities.  The 
drawing  of  plans,  the  selection  of  text-books  and  of  pro- 
fessors, are  things  belonging  to  the  Church,  and  not  to  the 
State.  The  bishops,  even  at  the  risk  of  contradicting  the 
governments,  must  watch  over  and  correct  the  doctrines  and 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  349 

of  the  state,  and  as  the  Church  believes  herself  to  be 
the  depository  of  all  truth,  she  claims  the  monopoly  of 
instructor,  and  demands,  not  only  the  liberty  of  teach- 
ing the  clergy  in  her  seminaries,  but  also  the  exclus- 
ive liberty  of  organizing,  as  she  sees  fit,  the  public 
schools,  institutions  and  universities.  According  to 
Romanism,  the  instruction  of  the  people  is  the  duty, 
not  of  the  state,  but  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  the  prov- 
ince of  the  state,  but  of  the  Church  to  make  the  plans 
and  programs.39  Romanism  is  drawing  its  chains  of 
iron  tighter  and  tighter,  saying  to  the  secular  princes, 
in  regard  to  moral  and  mixed  questions :  I,  as  the  su- 
perior, must  decide  them.40  And  as  the  Church,  in 
virtue  of  her  sovereignty,  claims  the  power  to  decide 
what  questions  are  mixed  and  what  are  moral,  all 
other  powers  must  therefore  be  under  her  jurisdic- 
tion.41 And  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  escape, 
either  for  the  simple  faithful  or  for  the  prince,  Ro- 
manism condemns  the  doctrine  of  the  separation  of 
Church  and  state,  and  also  of  the  free  Church  within 
the  free  state.42 

the  professorships.  The  bishops  must  ask  the  teachers  for  an 
account  of  their  opinions  and  doctrines,  even  though  by  so 
doing  they  go  against  the  public  authorities." — Syllabus. 

89  Same  authors  and  heads.  See  Bertier  on  the  rights  of 
the  Church,  and  Hurter,  on  same  head.  In  Mexico  the 
bishop  even  considers  it  a  reserved  sin  to  send  children  to 
government  schools.  See  the  Council  of  Pueblo,  where  re- 
sides Archbishop  Ibarra,  reputed  as  the  most  learned  man  in 
the  neighboring  republic. 

40  Same  authors  previously  mentioned.  Leo  XIII :  En- 
cyclicals previously  mentioned. 

41  Same  authors  already  mentioned.  "It  is  not  for  the 
State  to  dictate  to  the  Church,  but  for  the  Church  to  dictate 
to  the  State  which  of  the  laws  are  just  and  which  unjust." — 
Syllabus. 

42  Pius    IX :     Syllabus.      Cardinal    Vives :     Rights    of    the 


350  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

It  proclaims  that  the  state  and  the  Church  must  live 
together,  for  thereby,  on  the  grounds  stated  above,  the 
state  will  remain  entirely  subject  to  the  Church.  Per- 
haps some  candid  reader  will  exclaim  with  astonish- 
ment: That  is  impossible,  that  is  not  done,  either  in 
America  or  in  Europe.  But  let  me  tell  you,  Romanist, 
be  you  American  or  European,  all  this  is  so  much  the 
doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church,  that  if  you  should  dare 
to  deny  any  of  the  rights  here  mentioned  you  would 
fall  into  a  grievous  sin,  and  would  be  excommuni- 
cated by  Romanism.  Do  you  know  why  these  things 
are  not  tolerated  in  any  state?  Because  they  are  so 
absurd,  so  contrary  to  the  sovereignty  and  liberty  of 
nations,  that  there  is  hardly  any  ruler,  who  with  or 
without  the  permission  of  the  Pope,  with  or  without 
the  papal  excommunication,  has  not  trodden  under 
foot  such  exorbitant  rights,  which  legally  or  illegally 
are  found  in  the  Roman  hypothesis,  not  the  Roman 
thesis.  But  do  not  forget,  Roman  believer,  that  you, 
as  a  faithful  one,  must  believe  in  the  Roman  thesis, 
must  believe  in  the  illimitable  sovereignty  of  the  Pope ; 
that  he  has  the  power  to  depose  rulers;  to  release 
their  subjects  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance;  that  these 
functionaries  are  exempt  from  public  charges  and  of- 
fices ;  that  the  churches  and  convents  shall  be  places  of 
refuge  where  criminals  may  seek  shelter,  in  order  to 
escape  from  the  secular  law ;  that  the  Church,  and  not 
the  state,  shall  take  charge  of  the  instruction  of  the 

Church.  "We  condemn  the  doctrine  that  teaches  that  the 
State  must  be  free  within  a  free  Church.  We  condemn  the 
other  doctrine  that  teaches  that  the  State  must  live  separate 
from  the  Church  or  the  Church  separate  from  the  State." 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  35 1 

people,  etc.  You  must  believe  all  these  things,  for 
Romanism  teaches  them  and  demands  them  as  the 
fundamental  rights  of  its  society.  And  as  you  must 
believe  this,  since  it  is  the  Roman  thesis,  we  say  to 
you,  supported  by  evidence  clear  as  noonday  light, 
that  neither  the  sovereignty  of  the  nations  nor  civic 
liberty  are  compatible  with  the  degrading  Roman 
thesis. 
24 


EPILOGUE. 

Having  reached  our  journey's  end,  we  can  now  cast 
a  retrospective  glance  upon  this  work  as  a  whole  and 
summarize  it  in  the  following  few  brief  clauses: 

1.  Official  Romanism  attempts  to  interpose  itself 
like  a  mischievous  penumbra  between  heaven  and 
earth;  between  God  and  man;  treading  on  the  most 
rudimentary  principles  of  sane  criticism;  spurning  the 
most  general  laws  of  good  exegesis;  usurping  facul- 
ties with  which  neither  the  Bible  nor  apostolic  his- 
tory is  endowed,  and  proclaiming  that  the  Sacred 
Scripture  is  an  enigma  incumbent  upon  it  alone  to 
decipher. 

2.  The  first  step  having  been  taken  by  imposing  the 
interpretation  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  it  has  promul- 
gated new  dogmas  which,  like  those  of  purgatory  and 
infallibility,  are  repugnant  to  the  Divine  Word  and  to 
apostolical  and  early  church  history;  it  has  instituted 
such  sacraments  as  auricular  confession  and  the  Eu- 
charist, which  were  neither  believed  in  the  first  cen- 
tury nor  should  be  believed  as  taught  now.  It  up- 
holds the  mass,  obligatory  celibacy,  and  an  infinite 
number  of  other  obligations  which  are  abusive  dis- 
turbers of  the  general  conscience  and  the  chief  cause 
of  the  decadence  of  religion.  Finally,  it  has  concen- 
trated in  the  hands  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  a  power 
so  unlimited,  so  anti-biblical,  so  irrational  and  so  anti- 
social that,  besides  entirely  nullifying  the  Church,  it 

(352) 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  353 

has  made  it  incompatible  with  scientific  and  civil  lib- 
erties, as  well  as  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  people. 
Union,  therefore,  with  official  Romanism  as  "a  basis, 
would  be  neither  practical  nor  beneficial.  Would  it 
not  be  possible  to  erect  an  arch  (such  as  I  have  at- 
tempted to  outline  in  this  book)  or  upon  some  foun- 
dation more  evangelical,  rational  and  humanitarian? 
Although  I,  alone,  formulate  the  question,  I  feel  that  I 
am  echoing  the  sentiments  of  thousands  and  millions 
of  Romanists  who,  not  daring  to  face  the  ire  of  the 
Vatican,  think  in  silence  as  I  think  in  public,  and  hope, 
as  I  hope,  that  there  will  arise  a  safe  formula  which, 
in  some  manner,  will  unite  us  against  official  Roman- 
ism and  impiety  in  the  defense  of  Christ  and  his 
Church. 
25 


APPENDIX. 

CATHOLIC     DOCTRINE     ON     FREE     RELIGIOUS     THOUGHT, 

CONSIDERING  MAN  AS  AN  INDIVIDUAL  AND 

AS  A  SOCIAL  BEING. 

The  Syllabus  condemns:  "Libertatem  conscientise 
et  cultum  esse  propium  cujuscumque  hominis  jus 
quod  lege  proclamari  et  asseri  debet  in  omni  recte  con- 
stituta  societate  et  jus  civibus  inhaere  ad  omnimodam 
libertatem  nulla  vel  ecclesiastica,  vel  civile  auctoritate 
coarctandam  quo  suos  conceptus  quoscumque  sive 
voce  sive  typis  sive  alia  ac  declarare  valeant."  Car- 
dinal Vives,  one  of  the  most  renowned  Romanists, 
commenting  on  the  encyclical  of  Leo  XIII  says :  "Er- 
go damnanda  indifferentia  politica  quoad  cultum  di- 
vinum.  .  .  .  Igitur  indifferentissimus  civilis  per  ab- 
surdum  est  deliramentum  et  pessima  machinatio." 
Have  you  heard  the  above,  American  people?  For  the 
Romanists  your  august  Constitution,  which  declares 
for  free  religious  liberty,  is  an  absurd  and  detestable 
one.    Let  us  now  hear  the  Vatican  Council : 

"Si  quis  dixerit  .  .  .  ut  catholici  justam  causam 
habere  possint  fidem  quam  sub  Ecclesia  magisterio 
jam  insceperunt,  assensu  suspenso  in  dubium  vocan- 
di  donee  demonstrationem  scientificam  credibilitatis  et 
veritatis  fidei  absolverint,  anathema  sit."  The  Ro- 
manists, not  satisfied  with  denying  the  moral  liberties 
in  their  individual  and  collective  aspects  further  pro- 
(354) 


CAPITULATING   BEFORE   PROTESTANTISM.  355 

claim  compulsory  religion.  Let  us  hear  again  the 
Romanist  echo,  Cardinal  Vives:  "Catholicis  certum 
fixumque  est,  tolerandos  non  esse  homines  a  Catho- 
lica  veritate  alienos,  eosque  meritis  quoque  poenis  esse 
coercendo.  Ecclesia  ipsa  potest  poenas  inflixere  et  de 
facto  inflixit  bonorum  proscriptiones,  flagellationes 
exilium  carceres  etiam  per  episcopos  qui  habere  sua 
tribunalia  et  suos  carceres."  Vide  Syllabus  prope  31 
Imo  Ecclesia  potest  sicut  quaecumque  societas  per- 
f ecta  uti  gladio  temporali.  . . .  Ea  potestate  uti  possunt 
sunt  Papa  et  Concilium  Generals.  .  .  .  "Juxta  car- 
dinalem  Tarquinium  non  desunt  doctores  qui  gravis- 
simam  censuram  infligunt  his  qui  hoc  jus  denegant  Ec- 
clesiae."— Bertier.  We  hope  that  Cardinal  Gibbons  will 
coordinate  his  affirmation  mentioned  in  Chapter  XVII 
of  his  book,  regarding  religious  liberty,  with  the  above 
passages,  in  which  the  Romanists  so  emphatically  deny 
it. 

ROMAN  DOCTRINE  ON  THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  STATE. 

Romanism  proclaims  itself  above  and  superior  to 
any  government.  Hear  Cardinal  Vives:  "Cum  finis 
Ecclesiae  sit  supernaturalis  et  potestas  ejus  suprema, 
sequitur  nullam  humanam  potestatem  Ecclesiae  liber- 
tatem  jura  praerogativas  impedire  aut  minuere  posse." 
Also  Leo  XIIFs  Encyclicals. 

The  first  step  being  taken,  they  consider  all  of  their 
functionaries  exempt  from  any  obedience  to  the  civil 
power,  as  follows :  "Ecclesiae  et  personae  ecclesiasticae 
jure  propio  immunitatis  privilegio  gaudent,  quod 
numquam  a  jure  civili  ortum  habuit.  Igitur,  absque 
naturalis  juris  aequitatis  violatione  nequit  abrogari  ea 


356  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

personalis  immunitas  qua  clerici  ab  onere  subeundae 
exercendaeque  militiae  eximuntur:  nee  progressus  prae- 
textu  nee  forma  liberioris  regiminis  in  societate  con- 
stituta  jus  habet  laica  potestas  postulandi  immunita- 
tis  ecclesiastical  abrogatione." — Syllabus. 

Notwithstanding  the  above  statement,  they  still 
claim  the  stupendous  asylum  privilege,  as  follows: 

"Ecclesiae  omnes,  etiamque  consecratae  non  sunt, 
earumque  porticus  et  atria,  quin  et  locus  in  quo,  primo 
lapide  jacto,  ecclesia  aedificanda  est,  itemque  oratoria 
Episcopi,  auctoritate  constituta,  asyli  jure  fruuntur: 
idemque  episcopi  palatium  et  domus  in  qua  parochus 
habitat,  et  domus  canonicales  et  sodalitiorum,  quae  eo- 
rum  ecclesiis  conjunctae  sunt,  turris  campanaria  quae 
intra  passus  triginta  ab  ecclesia  distat,  xenodochia  et 
coemeteria  eodem  jure  fruuntur.  Processio  in  hono- 
rem  S.  S.  Eucharistiae  gaudet  jure  asyli;  ibi  enim  est 
Ecclesia,  ubi  est  Christus  Jesus." — Cardinal  Vives. 
(Edition,  1905).  They  advance  and  subsequently 
deny  the  legislative  sovereignty:  "Potestas  ecclesias- 
tica  potestati  civili,  non  vero  civilis  ecclesiasticae  in- 
dicare  potest  quid  justum  vel  injustum  in  suis  legibus, 
vel  decretis." — Syllabus.  The  civil  law  contrary  to 
the  ecclesiastical  should  be  considered  void:  "Consti- 
tutiones  contra  canones,  et  decreta  praesulum  romano- 
runi,  vel  bonos  mores,  nullius  sunt  momenti." — Car- 
dinal Vives  and  others.  With  more  and  more  restric- 
tions they  yet  claim  that  on  mixed  and  legal  ques- 
tions the  Church  should  be  the  judge:  "In  quaes- 
tionibus  jurisdictionis  inter  ecclesiasticam  et  civilem 
potestatem  dirimendis,  nequaquam  principes  et  reges 
et  rerumpublicarum,  praesides  superiores  sunt  Eccle- 


CAPITULATING  BEFORE  PROTESTANTISM.     357 

siae ;  sed  ipsae  a  Sancta  Sede  Romana  sunt  definiendae." 
— Syllabus  and  Encyclicals  of  Leo  XIII.  Going  still 
further  by  denying  to  the  state  the  right  of  teaching, 
let  us  now  hear  what  the  Syllabus  condemns :  "Totum 
scholarum  publicarum  regimen,  in  quibus  juventus 
christianae  alicujus  Reipublicae  instituitur,  episcopali- 
bus  dumtaxat  seminariis  aliqua  ratione  exceptis, 
potest  ac  debet  attribui  auctoritati  civili,  et  ita  qui- 
dem  attribui,  ut  nullum  alii  cuicumque  auctoritati 
recognoscatur  jus  immiscendi  se  in  disciplina  schola- 
rum, in  regimine  studiorum,  in  graduum  collatione,  in 
delectu  aut  approbatione  magistrorum."  "Immo  Status 
civilis  non  habet  jus,  quando  aperit  scholas  eligendi 
magistros,  praescribendi  methodos  et  doctrinas,  sed  jus 
istud  competit  Ecclesiae  quae  sola  habet  jus  erigendi 
per  S.  Pontificem  Universitates  studiorum." — Bertier. 
Romanists  persist  in  denying  to  the  state  the  right  to 
separate  from  the  Church :  "Ecclesia  a  Statu  Status- 
que  ab  Ecclesia  subjugandus  est."  The  Syllabus  has 
condemned  this  doctrine.  In  conclusion  the  Church 
claims  to  itself  the  abusive  right  and  stupid  preroga- 
tive of  releasing  subjects  from  the  oath  of  fidelity, 
and  also  the  right  to  depose  rulers.  Let  us  hear 
the  theologians  and  Popes:  "Pontifex  Romanus  .  .  . 
in  omnes  reges  christianos  habet  potestatem  indirec- 
tani  jure  divino,  ita  ut  possit  illos  non  pro  libitu, 
sed  necessitate  finis  spiritualis  attingendi,  poenis 
coercere  et  etiam  deponere,  ut  defacto  deposuit  anti- 
quitus.  Quidam  non  attribuunt  Ecclesiae  nisi  po- 
testatem directivam,  qua  possit  solvere  casus  consci- 
entiae  turn  principum,  turn  populorum ;  sed  haec  sen- 
tentia  deserenda  videtur.     Alii  plures  cum  Bcllarmino 


35§  ROMAN    CATHOLICISM 

tuentur  Pontificem  non  habere  directe  et  immediate 
illam  potestatem  temporalem  sed  solam  spiritualem; 
tamen  ratione  spiritualis  habere  certam  indirecte  po- 
testatem quamdam  eamque  summam  in  temporalibus. 
"Quae  Bellarmini  opinio  de  indirecta  potestate  Romas 
aegre  tunc  audita  fuit." — Cardinal  Vives.  "S.  Grego- 
rius  P.  P.  VII  in  fini  Const.  Beate  Petre  7  Martii  1080, 
qua  Henricum  Imperatorem  deposuit,  B  BB.  Apos- 
tolos  Petrum  et  Paulum  invocans  concludit:  "Agite 
nunc  quaeso  patres  et  principes  sanctissimi,  ut  omnis 
mundus  intelligat  et  cognoscat,  quia  si  potestis  in 
ccelo  ligare  et  solvere,  potestis  in  terra  imperia,  regna, 
principatus,  marchias,  ducatus,  comitatus,  ea  omnium 
hominum  possessiones  pro  meritis  tollere  unicuique  et 
concedere.  Vos  enim  patriarchatus,  primatus,  archie- 
piscopatus,  episcopatus  frequenter  tulistis  pravis  et  in- 
dignis,  et  religiosis  viris  dedistis.  Si  enim  spiritualia 
judicatis,  quid  de  saecularibus  vos  posse  credendum 
est?  Et  si  Angelos  dominatis  omnibus  supervis  prin- 
cipibus  judicabitis,  quid  de  illorum  servis  facere  potes- 
tis? Addiscant  nunc  reges  et  omnes  saeculi  principes, 
quanto  vos  estis,  quid  potestis ;  et  timeant  parvipendere 
jussionem  Ecclesiae  vestrae  et  in  praedicto  Henrico  tarn 
cito  judicium  vestrum  exercete  ut  omnes  sciant,  quia 
non  fortuita  sed  vestra  potestate  cadet.  Confundan- 
tur  utinarn  ad  pcenitentiam  ut  spiritus  sit  salvus  in 
die  Domini." 

If  notwithstanding  the  statements  and  evidences 
shown  throughout  this  appendix,  there  still  remain 
some  credulous  enough  to  believe  that  the  religious 
freedom  as  well  as  the  sovereignty  of  any  nation 
could  not  be  impaired  under  Romanist  beliefs  and 


CAPITULATING    BEFORE    PROTESTANTISM.  359 

rules,  such,  then,  in  my  opinion  could  believe  the  most 
extravagant  narratives  regardless  of  their  absurdity. 
Possessing,  as  I  do,  such  an  exalted  opinion  of  the 
legal  and  ethical  sentiment  of  this  country,  I  feel  mor- 
ally convinced  that  Providence  has  designed  to  this 
greatest  of  nations  the  august  mission  of  not  only  es- 
tablishing the  sovereignty  of  true  liberty  upon  such  a 
solid  basis  as  she  has,  but  also  of  assisting  others  less 
fortunate  than  herself,  in  securing  their  legitimate 
emancipation.  So  certain  I  am  of  this  that  when  the 
true  Americans  awaken,  and  realize  the  great  danger 
of  losing  their  civil  and  religious  liberties,  they  will 
rise  in  their  might  and  vigorously  and  energetically 
protest  against  the  pernicious  advance  of  Romanism, 
of  which  every  step  forward  is  an  encroachment  upon 
their  civil  liberties. 


ERRATA  AND  ADDENDA. 

Chapter  VIII,  page  77,  line  7:    For  "join"  read  "imitate." 

Chapter  XI,  page  132,  footnote  7 :  For  "St.  Hypolytus" 
read  "Hippolytus." 

Chapter  XIII,  page  168,  footnote  18:  For  "Roman  ob- 
servatories" read  "Osservatore  Romano." 

Chapter  XIV,  page  187,  lines  18,  19:  In  the  clause,  "We 
are  dealing  with  a  theoretical  question,  not  with  a  practical 
one,"  transpose  "theoretical"  and  "practical,"  and  read,  "We 
are  dealing  with  a  practical  question,  not  with  a  theoretical 
one." 

Chapter  II,  page  11  :  When  I  speak  about  three  Popes  at 
the  same  time,  each  claiming  to  be  the  true  head  of  the 
Church,  it  should  be  added  that  the  epoch  during  which  this 
condition  was  most  marked  was  in  the  days  of  Gregory  XII, 
Benedict  XIII  and  Alexander  V. 


?SEcoTT 


